flassT B X 7 
Rnnk t Ga 4~ *F 



PRESENTED BY 



UNIVERSALISM HOT OF THE BIBLE: 



BEING 



AN EXAMINATION OF MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED TEXTS 
OF SCRIPTURE, IN CONTROVERSY BETWEEN EVAN- 
GELICAL CHRISTIANS AND UNIVERSALIS, 

COMPRISING 

A REFUTATION OF UNIYERSALIST THEOLOGY, AND AN EXPOSURE 
OF THE SOPHISTICAL ARGUMENTS AND OTHER MEANS 
BY WHICH IT IS PROPAGATED; 

Miih a (penpal and $cqiptun$ Xntex. 
By Eey. K D. GEORGE, 

AUTHOE OF ANNIHILATIONISM NOT OP THE BIBLE," ETC. 



Not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully ; but, by mani- 
festation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight 
of God. Paul. 



SECOND EDITION, REVISED. 

NEW YOKE: 
NELSON & PHILLIPS. 

CINCINNATI : HITCHCOCK & WALDEN. 
1874. 



/S7f 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1873, by 

CARLTON & LANAHAN, 
in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 




PREFACE. 



rpHE second edition of this work has been published 
in compliance with the following action of the Boston 
Preachers' Meeting of the Methodist Episcopal Church : 

Whereas, The Book entitled " Universalism not of the Bible" has 
been for some time out of print, and there being no other work on 
the subject of equal merit, or to be compared with this for fullness 
and thoroughness; and, 

Whereas, The work is especially valuable to meet and counteract 
the open, as well as secret and subtle, influence of Universalism, 
therefore, 

Resolved, That we request the author, Rev. K D. George, to give 
the work a thorough revision, and adapt it to the needs of the pres- 
ent time. 

Resolved, That we request the Book Agents at New York to publish 
the work thus revised at as early a time as practicable. 

The same action was subsequently unanimously taken 
by the Worcester District Preachers' Meeting. 

This book is designed to expose the errors of Univer- 
salism, and to aid the inquirer after truth. Does the 
reader desire to find a passage of Scripture connected 
with this subject ? let him turn to the " Scripture Index," 
and he is pointed to the page where the passage is ex- 
plained. Does he wish to find an argument or a fact 
stated ? he has only to turn to the " General Index," 
and he is directed to the place. It is not pretended, 
however, that every text or argument which may be 
used at times to teach Universalism is examined in this 



4 Preface. 

work ; but it will be admitted by Universalists them 
selves that if their doctrine is not contained in these texts 
which are examined, it is not found in the Bible. I 
have endeavored to examine all those upon which they 
rely with the greatest confidence, and conclude that but 
few, if any, of this class have escaped notice. Neither 
is it claimed that all the Scriptures which go to establish 
future punishment are presented. The prominent texts 
are given, and the falsity and absurdity of Universalist 
interpretations- shown. 

A work upon this plan, where so many texts of like 
import are examined separately, must of necessity involve 
some repetition of thought and. language. This, how- 
ever, is obviated in part by references from one section 
to another. 

When this work was first issued there were but very 
few among Universalists that admitted any future punish- 
ment, or that conduct here could in the least affect the 
future condition of man. There was here and there one 
with Restoration views, and a few Progressionists, but 
they were few comparatively. Now there are two classes 
in the order, one holding what is called " death and 
glory" doctrine, the other class teaching the Progressive 
scheme. The latter embrace all the errors of the former, 
with the exception of that concerning the condition of 
the soul in the resurrection. The old doctrine teaches 
equality there. The new teaches that all good and bad 
will enter the resurrection state needing discipline ; that 
they will enter differing in degree of excellence, accord- 
ing as death tinds them, and that the same means Avill 
be employed there to save them that are used in this 



Preface. 



5 



world to save sinners; that they will be instrvcted and 
punished until purified, and that such are the favorable 
circumstances, being freed from the flesh, that punish- 
ment may produce its almost immediate results. How 
the last named stand in regard to numbers in the order 
I am not informed. But from the fact that the theolog- 
ical works of the old school are highly commended and 
circulated, it may be inferred that the " death and glory " 
adherents are somewhat numerous. 

The difference, as will be seen, is not great, but in 
revising it became necessary to have respect to both 
doctrines. This has required the alteration of a few of 
the arguments. Two new sections have been added, 
one on the difference between the two theories and 
strictures on the future discipline process, and the other 
on Spiritualism as one form of Universalism. (Sec. CXL 
and CXLI.) Twelve pages have been taken from and 
as many added to the book, and the statistical parts have 
been corrected, all involving some labor and care in re- 
vising section references and indexes. The necessity of 
leaving out the section on the Parable of the Sower, 
inserted in the first edition by permission of the author^ 
Rev. P. R. Russell, is regretted. But limits were pre- 
scribed, so something must go out if any thing came in. 

The recent zeal awakened, especially in some locali- 
ties, by the centenary occasion of Universalism, furnishes 
one reason why a work of the character of this book 
should be circulated. 

I was a subscriber for, and constant reader of, the 
" Universalist Trumpet " more than two years before my 
conversion to God, and, as might be expected, imbibed 



6 



Preface. 



its spirit and sentiments. Having known something of its 
blighting influence upon my own heart, and witnessing 
it extensively upon others, and believing that Universal- 
ism, as its exists among us, while it professes a regard 
for the Bible, contains within it all the elements of theo- 
retical and practical infidelity, I have endeavored to tear 
off the mask and present its true features, how success- 
fully the reader will judge. 

For forty years past I have been a close observer of 
the modifications, tactics, and general operations of the 
order of Universalists, and, having availed myself of their 
periodicals and the works of their principal men, I am 
fully satisfied that, whatever the modifications, or by 
whomsoever preached, it is the same spurious gospel it 
was years ago when I listened to it. 

In writing, extracts have been taken from other au- 
thors, but it is believed that credit has been given in 
every instance; and although I have availed myself 
of all the helps at hand, yet it is believed that this 
production, for the most part, passes over ground here- 
tofore unoccupied by any other writer. It has been 
prosecuted under a firm conviction of duty, and in 
accordance with the advice of judicious brethren in the 
ministry whose opinions are worthy of respect. 

This second edition is submitted to a candid public 
with the earnest prayer of the author that it may be the 
means, under God, of saving some soul from death, and 
thereby hiding a multitude of sins. N. D. George, 

Oakdale, Mass.. Dec,, 1872. 



CONTENTS. 



PART I. 

PAGE 

Examination of Scriptures in Controversy between Univer- 
salists and believers in future and endless punishment. 9 

PART II. 

Miscellaneous Arguments 345 



MIVEKSALISM M)T OF THE BIBLE. 



PAET I. 

EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURES IN CONTROVERSY BE- 
TWEEN UNIVERSALISTS AND BELIEVERS IN FU- 
TURE AND ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 

I. "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will 
bless thee, and make thy name great ; and thou shalt 
be a blessing : and I will bless them that bless thee, and 
curse him that curseth thee ; and in thee shall all the 
families of the earth be blessed." Gen. xii, 2, 3. Re- 
peated chapter xviii, 17, 18, also xxii, 18, with this vari- 
ation : " In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be 
blessed." This is repeated to Isaac, chap, xxvi, 4, and 
to Jacob, chap, xxviii, 14. In Acts iii, 25, where Peter 
quotes it, the phrase " all the kindreds of the earth " 
occurs. 

This promise is often presented with great confidence 
as teaching the salvation of all men ; hence, Universal- 
ism has, by its advocates, been denominated the c< Abra- 
hamic Faith." Before proceeding in our examination 
it is proper to define Universalism, and show when, 
where, and by what means it is contended that universal 
salvation will be accomplished. According to this theory 
the whole race of Adam, that is, all that ever have lived, 
now live, or may hereafter live, will be made holy and 
happy, not in this world, but in the future or resurrec- 



10 



UxiYEESALISM NOT Ox? THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



tion state. Mr. Skinner says, " None, therefore, can be 
saved from all moral evil here. Add to this the fact 
that salvation includes redemption from death, and you 
will see that the work will not be fully accomplished 
till this corruptible puts on incorruption. In the morn- 
ing of the resurrection we shall be complete in the Sav- 
iour, and join in the song of Moses and the Lamb." — 
U. ML and Def., p. 261. Mr. Ballou says, " The resur- 
rection power, which brought again from the dead the 
Lord Jesus Christ, will finally, in him, make the whole 
human family gloriously immortal and incorruptible." — 
2&p., vol. i, p. 78. Again, Mr. Skinner says, tC The 
resurrection introduces us into the kingdom of endless 
blessedness." " We shall be equal in the resurrection," 
" all are alike, all equally honorable, glorious, and hap- 
py.* We shall be equal to the angels." " The resur- 
rection is spoken of as a victory over death, the grave, 
and sin." " In the victory of the resurrection there is 
no cause of regret. This is a victory in which a world 
is redeemed and saved." — V. HI. and Def., pp. 289, 293. 
Mr. Whittemore, in an effort to show that dying in sin 
determines nothing relative to the future, says : "The 
question touching man's future condition is not, how did 
he die ? but how will he be raised ? What constitution 
will he put on in the future existence ? To the process 
of this change (the resurrection) we are happy to leave 
not only the Jews, but all mankind. The sting of death, 
which is sin, will (then) be destroyed, and all be recon- 
ciled to the Father." — Trumpet, Oct. 6, 1855. See also 
a quotation from Williamson in Sec. XCIV. Quota- 
tions might be greatly multiplied from leading authors, 
but it is not demanded, as all who have any acquaint- 

* Both the old and new schools of Universalists hold that the 
resurrection introduces all into heaven. But the new school rejects 
the idea of equality there. See Section CXL. 



SeC. 1.] UxiVEESALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 



11 



ance with the system know what it attributes to the 
resurrection. Observe, it is not by faith in Christ, it is 
not by the atonement made by him, it is not by any 
conditions performed, but it is by " the victory of the 
resurrection that a world is redeemed and saved." 
With this view, then, we are at liberty to construe the 
promise to Abraham as follows : " In thy seed shall the 
whole race of man be made holy and happy in the future 
state by the resurrection." We contend that Heaven 
never designed to convey such instruction in this prom- 
ise, and that there is no evidence whatever that Abra- 
ham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the Prophets, or our Lord 
and his apostles, ever so understood it ; but on the other 
hand there is an abundance in the Scriptures to show 
that it has direct reference to the spread of Christianity 
in the earth, and not to the unconditional holiness and 
happiness of all men after death. This evidence will 
now be presented. Mr. Whittemore in his u Guide," p. 
30, in what were once called his " One Hundred Argu- 
ments," manufactures at least six of them out of this 
promise. Now if we can show that his doctrine derives 
no support from it, we shall overthrow his six arguments 
at once. In one he gives a quotation from Dr. Clarke 
on Gen. xii, 3, in which the Doctor states that the Mes- 
siah's " gospel shall be preached throughout the world, 
and innumerable blessings be derived on all mankind, 
through his death and intercessions." That all mankind 
have been graciously affected by the atonement is a 
truth to which we heartily subscribe, but it by no means 
follows that all will be saved in the future state ; and 
Dr. Clarke, as Mr. Whittemore well knows, neve>" in- 
tended to teach such a sentiment. That all the classes 
named, nations, families, and individuals, are said to be 
blessed, without being unconditionally saved in the fu- 
ture state, may be seen by referring to the following 
Scriptures: Psa. xxxiii, 12 ; Num. xxii, 12 ; Gen. ix, 1 : 



12 



UnIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



2 Sam. vi, 11; Gen. xxxix, 5; Judges xiii, 24; Gen. 

xvii, 20. 

In order to bring out the true import of this promise, 
let us inquire : 

1. What is meant by the seed of Abraham through 
whom the nations are to be blessed? 

In Gal. hi, 16, we read as follows : " Now to Abraham 
and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and 
to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, and to thy seed, 
which is Christ." Here it is stated that Christ is the 
seed of Abraham. But it will be seen, by examining 
the chapter, that the apostle states with equal clearness 
that believers are Abraham's seed. This matter is set 
in a very clear light in the following extract : "He saith 
not, and to seeds. It was one particular kind of posterity 
which was intended : but as of one . . . which is Christ y 
that is, to the spiritual head, and all believers in him, 
who are children of Abraham because they are believers, 
ver. 7. But why does the apostle say, not of seeds, as 
of many ? To this it is answered that Abraham pos- 
sessed in his family two seeds, one natural, namely, the 
members of his own household ; and the other spiritual, 
those who were like himself because of their faith. The 
promises were not of a temporal nature ; had they been 
so they would have belonged to his natural seed ; but 
they did not, therefore they must have belonged to the 
spiritual posterity ; and as we know the promises of 
justification, etc., could not properly be made to Christ 
himself, hence we must conclude his members to be here 
intended, and the word Christ is put here for Christians. 
It is from Christ that the grace flows which constitutes 
Christians. Christians are those who believe after the 
example of Abraham; they are, therefore, the spiritual 
seed. Christ, working in and by these, makes them the 
light and salt of the world ; and through them, under 
and by Christ, are all the nations of the earth to be 



Sec. 1.] Uniyersalism not of the Bible. 



13 



blessed. This appears to be the most consistent inter- 
pretation, though every thing must be understood of 
Christ in the first instance, and then of Christians only 
through him." — Clarke. 

That this view is correct is evident from verses 7th 
and 29th of the same chapter, which read thus : " Know 
ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are 
the children of Abraham ;" that is, they are the spiritual 
seed of Abraham. Again, u And if ye be Christ's, then 
are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise." 
Now what truth do we arrive at by this view of the 
subject and these plain declarations of Scripture ? It is 
this : All true Christians, by virtue of their union icith 
Christ, by faith constitute the spiritual seed of Abraham, 
and that it is through them that the nations of the earth 
are to be blessed. True Christians are Christ upon 
earth. They are his representatives ; hence he said to 
his disciples when he sent them forth, " He that receiv- 
eth you receiveth me." Matt, x, 40. Having ascertained 
from the Scriptures who are the seed of Abraham, we 
come to inquire : 

2. What is meant by the phrases all nations, all kin- 
dreds, etc. ? Do they according to Scripture usage 
always mean a universal ichole ? What is their im- 
port in this promise ? 

The phrase all nations, as used in the Scriptures, does 
not always indicate a universal whole. By a universal 
whole we mean the whole posterity of Adam. This ex- 
pression is sometimes used to denote a great number. 
The Saviour says, "Is it not written, My house shall be 
called of all nations the house of prayer?" Mark xi, 17. 
Does the Saviour mean to convey the idea that the 
whole race of Adam should call the temple a house of 
prayer ? Certainly not ; for millions had died before the 
temple was known, and millions have died since with- 
out a knowledge of it. The Psalmist says, " All nations 



14 



Uniyeesalism not of the Bible. [Part 1, 



compassed me about, but in the name of the Lord will I 
destroy them." Psa. cxviii, 10. The fact here brought 
out is, the great number of his enemies, and not that the 
whole of Adam's posterity had surrounded him, as all 
will see. Other instances, were it necessary, might be 
given where this phrase is used in a restricted sense; 
and although Universalist writers profess to see nothing 
but the whole human family made happy in the future 
state by the promise in question, because of the univer- 
sal language employed, yet in considering Matt, xxv, 32, 
where the same phrase occurs, they can see with great 
clearness "all nations" gathered at Jerusalem's destruc- 
tion ! "All kindreds." Great stress has been laid upon 
Peter's use of this in connection with the promise, Acts 
iii, 25, as though Universalism must be the truth of God 
on account of it. In Rev. i, 7, we read, "Behold, he 
cometh with clouds ; and every eye shall see him, and 
they also which pierced him : and all kindreds of the 
earth shall wail because of him." Upon this the follow- 
ing is submitted : 

1. Believers in the second personal advent of Christ 
do not consider this phrase to be here used in a univer- 
sal sense. Wailing is expressive of distress, grief, and 
sorrow. But they are warranted, by many other Script- 
ures, to believe that the second coming of Christ will be 
a time of joy to saints ; hence, they restrict the applica- 
tion to those who shall be unprepared to meet Christ as 
their judge. 

2. But if, as Universalist s will have it, the scene here 
described refers to some temporal calamity, then certain- 
ty the expression " all kindreds of the earth " is not used 
to designate the whole human race, as must be obvious 
to all. 

The conclusion is, that these expressions are not al- 
ways employed in the Scriptures to convey the idea of a 
universal whole, but are sometimes used when a part only 



feec. 1.] Ujstversalism not of the Bible. 



15 



is intended, and the sense of such phraseology must be 
determined either by the connection in which it is found, 
or by other plain declarations of Scripture respecting the 
same subject. The question now properly comes up, In 
what sense are these expressions used in the promise un- 
der consideration ? Do they express a universal whole, 
or are they used in a restricted sense? We answer 
without hesitancy that they are used in a restricted 
sense, and not as meaning the whole race of man, but as 
expressive of the general spread of the Gospel in the 
earth. This will be shown by indisputable Scripture 
evidence under the next head. 

3. Our next inquiry is, What is the blessing promised, 
and where and how is it received ? 

It has been already admitted that certain uncondi- 
tional blessings are secured to the whole human race by 
virtue of the atonement, but we should never learn this 
fact, we think, from the Abrahamic promise. The 
gracious and universal effects of the atonement named 
we conceive to be taught in other Scriptures, while the 
promise in question assures us of the triumphs of Christ's 
kingdom in the earth. It is conceived, too, that the par- 
ticular blessing to which reference is had is that of 
justification by faith, as preparatory to a well-grounded 
hope for the future. Gal. iii, 8 ; Heb. vi, 18, 19. We 
propose now to examine the prominent passages in the 
New Testament where this promise is quoted or referred 
to, and see to what results we are led. The first we 
present in proof of our position is found, Acts iii, 22-26 : 
u For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall 
the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, 
like unto me ; him shall ye hear in all things whatso- 
ever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, 
that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall 
be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the 
prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as 



16 



TT-NIYERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 
Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant 
which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abra- 
ham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth 
be blessed. Unto you first, God having raised up his Son 
Jesus sent him to bless you, in turning away every one 
of you from his iniquities." — (Sec. XXX.) The instruc- 
tion imparted by the apostle in this passage is very plain. 
He states that Moses foretold the advent of Christ 
among the Jews as their prophet or lawgiver, and that 
they were to hear or obey him in all things whatsoever 
he should say, and declares to them that they should be 
punished for disobedience. He then states that all the 
prophets from Samuel, and those that follow after, had 
foretold these wonderful days of the Messiah's reign al- 
ready commenced. They are then reminded of the fact 
that by natural descent they were the children of the 
prophets and of the covenant made with Abraham, and as 
such unto them first, God having raised up his Son in the 
flesh, sent him to bless them, in accordance with the 
promise made to Abraham, in turning every one of them 
from their iniquities. It must be obvious to every reader, 
we think, that Peter in this passage is speaking of the 
fact that the Jews were the first to have the Gospel 
preached to them, and that Gospel blessings in this world 
are the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham. It 
is clear, too, that he is speaking conditionally when he 
says to the Jews that God sent his Son Jesus " to bless 
you in turning away every one of you from his iniqui- 
ties," for all the Jews were not turned from their iniqui- 
ties, neither have they been to this day. Observe, God 
sent his Son first to bless them, that is, the Jews. This 
blessing is the one promised to Abraham, (ver. 25.) 
But how shall we reconcile the apostle's words with the 
assumption that the promise is to have its fulfillment in 
the resurrection state ? Are the Jews to be blessed first 



Sec. 1.] UxiVEKSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



17 



in eternity ? Are they to be turned from iniquity in the 
future state? Are the disobedient to be destroyed 
Irom among the people beyond the grave? Admit the 
fact that the promise secures the triumph of the Gospel in 
this world among; " the nations of the earth? and all is 
plain. Christ " came unto his own," (John i, 11,) that is, 
the Jews, and in the commission given to his disciples 
they were to preach in " all nations, beginning at Jeru- 
salem? (Luke xxiv, 47,) and thus the offers of the Gospel 
were first made to the Jews. In strict obedience to this 
command, the apostles as they went forth preached first 
to the Jews. Thus did Paul and Barnabas, (Acts xiii, 
46 :) " Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said. It 
was necessary that the word of God should first 
have been spoken to you : but seeing ye put it from 
you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, 
lo, we turn to the Gentiles." This was spoken to Jews 
who rejected Gospel blessings. We learn then from the 
very passage in which the noted expression " all the 
kindreds of the earth " is found, that the promise under 
consideration indicates the spread of the Gospel in this 
world, and not the salvation of all men in eternity. 

The following is from the inspired apostle to the Gen- 
tiles, who well understood the Abrahamic promise, and 
he conjoins the blessing promised with faith, (Gal. iii, 8 :) 
" And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify 
the heathen through faith, preached before the Gos- 
pel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be 
blessed." Now how should this read to harmonize 
with Universalist views ? Let the reader bear in mind 
that the form of Universalism we are now considering 
asserts : 

1. That the Abrahamic promise pledges the uncondi- 
tional salvation of all men. 

2. That " none can be saved from all moral evil 
here." 

2 



18 



UNIVERSALIS}! NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



3. That the resurrection " is a victory in which a 
world is redeemed and saved." 

To accord with these propositions, we are at liberty to 
paraphrase the apostle's words, thus : " The Scripture, 
foreseeing that God would make the whole human family 
holy and happy after death, by the resurrection, independ- 
ent of their own agency, preached before the gospel unto 
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all mankind be blessed in 
eternity." Is this the mind of the Spirit ? What a 
violent wresting of the Scriptures error demands ! In 
the text quoted, we have the apostle's application of the 
promise, and learn, 

1. That the blessing named is justification. 

2. That the blessing is to be secured in this life, as it 
is "through faith." None expect to obtain salvation 
in the future state by an exercise of faith there ; for 
" faith cometh by hearing " the preached word. Rom. x, 
14-17. 

3. That conditions are sometimes implied when not 
expressed. This is a prophetical promise, given in abso- 
lute language, without naming the conditions ; but Paul, 
in applying this promise to personal salvation, explains 
it conditionally. 

In Rom. iv, 11, 22-24, we read, "And he received the 
sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the 
faith which he had yet being uncircumcised : that he 
might be the father of all them that believe, though they 
be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed 
to them also. And therefore it was imputed to him for 
righteousness. Xow it was not written for his sake 
alone, that it was imputed to him ; but for us also, to 
whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that 
raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." Again, Gal. 
iii, 26, 29 : "For ye are all the children of God by faith 
in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abra- 
ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise," Again, 



Sec. 1.] Univbesalism xot of the Bible. 



19 



verse 9 : "So then they which be of faith are blessed with 
faithful Abraham."' In these passages the apostle makes 
a conditional application of this promise which need not 
be misunderstood, showing most conclusively that none 
can enjoy the blessing promised to Abraham but such as 
are imitators of his faith. Take the following from Acts 
xiii, 32,33: " And we declare unto you glad tidings, how 
that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God 
hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he 
hath raised up Jesus again." So far is the apostle from 
intimating that this promise is to have its fulfillment in 
eternity, that he explicitly declares that " God hath ful- 
filled the same unto us their children ; M that is, he has 
raised Christ from the dead, the Gospel is preached, sin- 
ners believe, and thus the promise is fulfilled. 

Take another passage, found in Rom. xv, 8-10 : 
"Xow I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the 
circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the prom- 
ises made unto the fathers, and that the Gentiles might 
glorify God for his mercy ; as it is written, For this 
cau>e will I confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing 
unto thy name. And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentile-, 
with his people." Here we have the same view pre- 
sented concerning the promise, namely, the spread of the 
Gospel in the world, not only among the Jews, but Gen- 
tiles also. Zach arias, the priest, and father of John, 
refers to this promise, and states its design, (Luke i, 
68-75 : u Blessed be the Lord God of Israel ; for he hath 
visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up a 
horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant 
David; as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, 
which have been since the world began, that we should be 
saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that 
hate us; to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, 
and to remember his holy covenant ; the oath which he 
sware to our father Abraham, that he would grant unto 



20 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part. I, 



us, that we, being delivered out of the hand of our 
enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and 
righteousness before him, all the days of our life." Does 
Zacharias even intimate that its fulfillment is to be ac- 
complished by the salvation of all men after death? 
Nothing of the kind. He explains the design of the 
promise, which is of course spiritual in its nature, to be 
a deliverance in this world from the bondage of our 
spiritual enemies, that we may serve God without slavish 
fear " in holiness and righteousness before him, all the 
days of our life" 

It has now been shown most conclusively, we think, from 
the word of God that that part of the covenant made 
with Abraham, under examination, finds its fulfillment in 
this w T orld by the spread of the Gospel among the nations 
of the earth, that it is conditional, and that none can 
enjoy its blessings but the spiritual children of Abra- 
ham, or believers in Christ, such being Abraham's seed, 
and the only legitimate heirs according to promise. 

At this point let us introduce the testimony of a Uni- 
versalist minister. Mr. French delivered the Occasional 
Sermon before the Maine Convention of Universalists, 
at Thomaston, June 28, 1843, in which he rebukes his 
brethren for some of their gross perversions, and this 
promise among the rest, and says : u We would not 
with unholy hands tear dow T n what has been so long in 
rearing, but you will permit us to query if the promise 
to Abraham (Gen. xxii, 18) may have any reference to 
the future world ? Is it consistent to quote it, especially 
if we deny that life and immortality are brought to 
view in the Old Testament ? And do not Peter (Acts iii, 
26) and Paul (Gal. iii) both apply that promise to 
this life ? Let our preachers be on good terms of con- 
sistency if we would make advancement. Why should 
we furnish sticks for our enemies to beat us with ? " — 
Banner, vol. ix 5 p, 5, 



Sec. 1.] Universalis:*! not of the Bible. 



21 



"Whether or not all the ministers of this order under- 
stand the import of this promise is not for us to deter- 
mine ; but we fear that all have not the candor of Mr. 
French in expressing their convictions. 

There is one consideration more we gather from the 
subject which should forcibly impress us all as moral 
beings. It is this : that in order to possess a good hope 
of heaven, all should exert their moral agency to be- 
come heirs of promise. Hear the Apostle Paul upon 
this, (Heb. vi, 17-20:) "Wherein God, willing more 
abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immu- 
tability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath : that by 
two immutable things, in which it was impossible for 
God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have 
fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us : 
which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure 
and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the 
vail ; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus. 5 ' 

In view of this Scripture, let us inquire — 

1. W 7 ho are the heirs of promise ? Not all men, but 
only such as are Christ's. Gal. iii, 29. All are not 
Christ's, for " if any man have not the spirit of Christ, 
he is none of his." Rom. viii, 9. The heirs of promise 
are believers in Christ, but " all men have not faith." 
2 Thess. iii, 2. 

2. Who have this strong consolation, and the hope 
which enters into heaven where Jesus is ? Do all men 
have it ? No ; for u the wicked is driven away in his 
wickedness ; but the righteous hath hope in his 
death." Prov. xiv, 32. Some are " strangers from the 
covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God 
in the world." Eph. ii, 12, 

A great play of words has been made upon the oath 
of God, named in this passage, as though this were 
something in favor of Universalism, and thus taking for 
granted what can never be proved, namely, that the 



22 



UlSTVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



promise, which is confirmed by an oath, secures the un- 
conditional salvation of all men in the future state. This 
we have shown again and again to be false, and it is re- 
futed in this very connection ; for to whom are those 
blessings named secured by the promise and oath of 
God, and who have the hope of heaven like an anchor 
to the soul? Not all men, surely, but such as "have 
fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set 
before them." Has the neglecter, the swearer, the 
drunkard, the extortioner, the self-righteous man fled 
for refuge ? To state this is to refute it. 

Universalism the " Abrahamic Faith ! " What a 
gross perversion ! The extension of Christ's kingdom 
in the earth is contemplated by it, and the blessing of 
■Justification is secured to all believers as a preparation 
for heaven. Furthermore, this promise, for reasons al- 
ready given, cannot be forced to teach that after the 
resurrection, by -discipline, obeying the precepts of 
Christ, or copying his example, all men will either be 
whipped into goodness or progress into a high and holy 
state, notions now entertained and propagated by some 
TJniversalist teachers. 

II. Matt, xxiii, 13 : "Woe unto you, scribes," etc. 

Mr. Whittemore says : " Jesus reproved the Phari- 
sees for shutting up the kingdom of heaven. 6 Woe unto 
you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye shut up 
the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go 
in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering 
to go in.' Matt, xxiii, 13. These Pharisees were never 
charged with having shut up the kingdom of hell ; that 
they appear to have kept open. But they shut up the 
kingdom of heaven. Jesus desired to have all men 
enjoy his kingdom ; and we are assured that at last all 
shall know the Lord, from the least unto the greatest. 



Sec. 2.] Universalis:*! xot of the Bible. 



23 



They will then all have entered the Gospel kingdom." 
— Guide, p. 44. Does Mr. W. admit that the "king- 
dom of heaven " here means salvation, or the place of 
it in the future world, or does he believe in a future 
hell ? No : neither of them. Of the former he says, 
u The phrase c kingdom of heaven,' in its common 
use in the Xew Testament, does not refer to the 
future world, but to the reign of the Gospel in this 
world.*' — Guide, p. 88. Would he allow that the 
Pharisees kept men from entering future heavenly 
bliss ? If so, then Universalism is a fable. Yet he 
presents a contest between Christ and the Pharisees 
on these two states, confined as he will have them 
to this world, as evidence of the salvation of all men in 
eternity ! Truly a man must be very ignorant or 
wicked to construct such an argument for such a 
purpose ; for, remark, this is the whole of one of 
his " One Hundred Arguments" to prove Universal- 
ism, that is, the salvation of all men in the resurrection 
state. 

But it is not quite enough for his purpose that Jesus 
reproved the Pharisees thus ; hence, it is added, a we are 
assured that at last 'all shall know the Lord, from the 
least to the greatest. 1 " The passage to which Mr. W. 
refers is found in Jer. xxxi, 33, 34. By turning to it, 
it will be seen that the covenant is not made with the 
whole human family, but with "the house of Israel" 
" For they shall all know me." Who ? Xot the whole 
race of man, but the "house of Israel;" v. 33. 
Xow whatever the blessings herein contained, they are 
promised only to the house of Israel, and the applica- 
tion of these words to all men, to prove that they will 
all be saved in heaven, is but another instance of gross 
perversion. The prophet is speaking of a prosperous 
state of things in this world, and not of the salvation oi 
all our race in eternity. 



24 Universalis M not of the Bible. [Part I, 



III. " For ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. iii, 28. 

"Paul saith to the Galatians, 'There is neither Jew 
nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither 
male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and 
heirs according to promise.' According to what prom- 
ise ? Answer : According to the promise of God to 
Abraham, that in him, and his seed [Christ] all the na- 
tions, kindreds, and families of the earth shall be blessed. 
In Christ, therefore, none of the distinctions are known 
of which Paul there speaks. ' Ye are all one in Christ 
Jesus.' That point being settled, he adds, 6 And if ye be 
Christ's, [as he had proved,] then are ye Abraham's 
seed, [that is, not by lineal descent, but spiritually,] 
and heirs according to promise.' " — Guide, p. 49. 

Here we have the argument, with all its comeliness, 
built upon a gross perversion of the Scriptures. It is 
assumed that "all" in the text means the whole hu- 
man race. But is it so ? Look at the context, and it 
will be seen who " are all one in Christ Jesus." " YeP 
Who. All men ? No, but believers ; for such he is ad- 
dressing. They are those who had " put on Christ," 
(v. 27,) and such only. Taking those Scriptures which 
are applied by the inspired writers to a particular class 
of men where the words all and every chance to occur, 
and applying them to the whole race of man, has been 
a very common work with writers of this school. This 
may deceive the ignorant, but it can never deceive the 
man who is acquainted with his Bible. The perversion 
of the Abrahamic promise, to make out the argument, 
is exposed in Section I. 

IV. " Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son 
of man, it shall be forgiven him : but whosoever speak- 
eth against the Holy Gho.st, it shall not be forgiven 



Sec. 4.] TJniversalism not of the Bible. 



25 



him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." 
Matt, xii, 32 ; Mark iii, 29 ; Luke xii, 10. 

The course pursued by TJniversalist writers upon this 
text is both evasive and sophistical. The author of the 
" Guide " labors first to contradict the Son of God by 
quoting Isa. i, 18, and 1 John i, 7-9, to show that all 
sins are pardonable, "the sin against the Holy Ghost 
not excepted ;" then to show that the text is a Hebra- 
ism, and is not to be understood absolutely. To sustain 
this, a quotation is given, purporting to be from Gro- 
tius, the correctness of which we have not the means of 
ascertaining. He then brings to his aid the Douay, a 
Catholic translation. Now we suppose the Catholic 
priests are about as honest as TJniversalist expositors, 
and are equally anxious to promulgate the doctrine, in 
opposition to the Saviour, that sins of all kinds are par- 
donable, since they blasphemously assume the preroga- 
tive to pardon sin : and to admit that some are unpar- 
donable would curtail their revenues. After stating 
that a Catholic writer asserts that there is no sin which 
cannot be forgiven on repentance, Mr. Whittemore says, 
it is a " conclusion to which many of the very best 
orthodox writers have come, that all manner of sin and 
blasphemy is more easily forgiven than the sin against 
the Holy Ghost." Who these " many of the very best 
orthodox writers" are, we are not informed. This is 
probably a mere make-weight, thrown in without any 
foundation in truth. And then if it is in accordance 
with the Divine government that all kinds of sins are 
pardonable, what folly to talk of some sins being more 
easily forgiven than others ! Cannot Omnipotence par- 
don one sin as easily as another ? For Mr. W. to labor 
to show that any sin "if duly and sincerely repented 
of" may be forgiven, is only to raise a false issue ; for 
none, to our knowledge, ever disputed it. If there is 
evangelical repentance, God is bound by the principles 



26 Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



of his owd government, as revealed in his word, to for- 
give ; w T hile the same principles bind him not to forgive 
if men do not repent. The sin against the Holy Ghost 
places men where they will not and cannot repent as 
the Gospel requires, and of course they will never be 
forgiven. Paul speaks of the same class of sinners 
(Heb. vi, 4-6) when he says, "It is impossible ... to 
renew them again unto repentance.' ' (Sec. LXXXVII.) 

Nothing is gained to Universalism by limiting this 
sin, as Dr. Clarke and some others are disposed to do, 
to the Jews who attributed the miracles of Christ to 
the power of the devil ; for if those Jews, and those only 
who w T ere guilty of this, died unforgiven, and are to suf- 
fer eternal damnation, Universalism is just as false as 
though millions suffered it. Nearly two pages of the 
" Guide " are occupied by an effort well calculated to 
bewilder the superficial reader of the Bible. He is first 
carried to Heb. ix, 26, and 1 Cor. x, 11, where the ex- 
pressions " end of the world " and " ends of the world" 
occur; then to Eph. ii, 7, where the phrase "ages to 
come " is found. It is then asserted that the passage in 
Matthew under consideration should read, " shall not be 
forgiven, neither in this world," or age, which ended 
when the Gospel age began ; " neither in the world," or 
age, "to come," that is, the age which succeeded it. 
The author of the " Guide " then adds : " Now, although 
the sin against the Holy Ghost was not to be forgiven, 
neither in the then existing age or world, nor in the age 
or world which succeeded it, yet (mark, reader) in the 
worlds to come, [for it is the same Greek word in 
Ephesians which you find in Matthew,] God will show 
the exceeding riches of his grace." The sentiment here 
put forth is this : the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost 
shall not be forgiven, neither in the Jewish age, neither 
in the Christian age, but in the ages to- come : that is, 
after the Jewish and Christian ages or dispensations 



Sec. 4.] Universalism not of the Bible. 27 

have passed away, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost- 
shall be forgiven. The Jewish dispensation is already 
past, and the Christian dispensation will continue till 
the end of time, till Christ shall deliver up the kingdom 
to the Father. 1 Cor. xv, 24. It is in the future world, 
then, that blasphemers against the Holy Ghost are to be 
pardoned; so, of course, such sinners are found in eter- 
nity with guilt and condemnation upon them, or they 
would not need forgiveness after the Christian dispensa- 
tion is past. Now if guilt is in the future world, there 
must be misery, and thus the no-future- suffering doc- 
trine so much insisted on by Mr. W. is destroyed by 
his own interpretations. Truth lies in a straight line, 
but error is crooked like the old serpent who is the 
father of it. Again, if this sin is not to be forgiven 
either in the Jewish or Christian age, then those who 
commit it must " die in their sins" and those who die 
thus must be excluded from heaven where Christ has 
gone. John viii, 21 ; Acts i, 11. So nothing in reality 
is gained to Universalism even by this interpretation. 
But the Lord from heaven has brushed away at a stroke 
all this web of sophistry which has been thrown around 
his truth ; for, as if he foresaw that men would rise up 
in these last days and attempt to prevent this truth of 
his, as given by one of his servants, he inspires another 
to present it to the world in language not to be quib- 
bled away. Hear him : " He that shall blaspheme 
against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, 
but is in danger of eternal damnation." Mark 
iii, 29. If " hath never forgiveness" means that all 
shall be forgiven, and if -eternal damnation means 
eternal bliss in heaven, then may Universalism be true. 
No man can be exposed to that which does not exist, 
and if no such thing as eternal damnation exists, then 
was Christ a deceiver. Mark, reader, this was addressed 
to Jews, who were believers in eternal damnation. 



28 



Universalism ^ot of the Bible. [Part I, 



That the Jews so "believed is fully admitted by Uni- 
versalist writers. (Sec. CXXXI.) Such language could 
not fail to be understood by the Jews as teaching end- 
less punishment ; and as they understood it, so should we. 

Since writing the above, a pamphlet has come to hand, 
by J. F. Witherell, in which the " most popular objec- 
tions " to Universalism are "fairly stated, candidly ex- 
amined, and fully answered " This is the profession. 
We take the following entire argument from the work : 
" Objection 4.—-' The Bible teaches that some sin hath 
never forgiveness? Well, suppose it does, is that any 
proof that all mankind will not eventually be made holy 
and happy ? Surely not. I say to the objector, that if 
he supposes the phrase 'hath never forgiveness' is an 
objection to the doctrine of a world's salvation, he hath 
never properly understood it ; but that is no proof that 
he never will. This little pamphlet hath never been burn- 
ed, but that is no proof that some good brother, who can- 
not endure sound doctrine, will not commit it to the 
flames. Because a thing never has been, that, of course, 
is no reason why it never will be, and hence because a 
certain sin committed eighteen hundred years ago, at that 
time had not been forgiven, that is no proof that it has 
not long since been forgiven, especially when the Saviour 
hath positively said that ail manner of sin shall be for- 
given." — P. 25. Here we have the objection "fairly 
stated, candidly examined, and fully answered." (! !) We 
see by this, also, what kind of compasses current with the 
order ; for in the author's note to the reader, in w r hich he 
boasts of its ready sale and the wonders it has accom- 
plished, he says, "It received complimentary notices 
from Universalist presses throughout the country, and 
was cordially approbated by our ministering brethren 
generally." Such a flat contradiction of the Saviour's 
words carries its own antidote to all honest minds. The 
sense of the passage is this ; all sins are pardonable on 



Sec, 5.] Universalis^ not of the Bible. 



repentance, but the sin against the Holy Ghost. This 
sin formed an exception to the rule, hence, Luke reports 
the Saviour thus: "Whosoever shall speak a word 
against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him : but 
unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost, it 
shall not be forgiven him." Luke xii, 10. 

V. " And so all Israel shall be saved : as it is written, 
There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall 
turn away ungodliness from Jacob." Rom. xi, 26. 

The first clause of this text we often find either in 
blazing capitals or significant italics, to prove most posi- 
tively that the whole of the Jewish nation are to be 
saved unconditionally in the future world, than which 
nothing can be more false, as we shall now show. Here 
let us inquire, What is the scope of the apostle's reason- 
ing in this part of the Epistle ? Is he laboring to prove 
that all the Jewish race will be unconditionally saved 
in eternity? Nothing like it. In the ninth, tenth, and 
eleventh chapters he is setting forth the equal privileges 
of Jews and Gentiles under the Gospel, and shows that 
the Gentiles, if they believed, should share in its salva- 
tion ; and that the Jews, if they disbelieved, should not 
be saved by its provisions. See chap, xi, 1-24. With- 
out entering into detail, a few points will be fixed upon 
connected with the salvation of which the apostle is 
speaking to show most clearly that it is conditional, and 
that he does not teach the absolute certainty of the sal- 
vation of the whole Jewish nation, and by parity of 
reason the whole human family, but a different senti- 
ment. The course the apostle pursues lies with mighty 
weight against the Universalist notion. He says, in this 
same epistle, " Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer 
to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." Chap, 
x, 1. Why this intense emotion on the part of the 
apostle if he was conn dent that all would be saved ? 



30 Universalis^ xot of the Bible. [Pail I, 



What should we think of a Universalist minister in our 
day who should go about with the deep-toned feeling 
here expressed, praying that a particular class of men 
might be saved ? We should think that his practice 
grossly conflicted with his theory. And who does not 
know that it is the boasted bliss of Universalism that it 
delivers its votaries from all such trouble about the sal- 
vation of men. Was Paul a Universalist? These re- 
marks are based upon the assumption that the apostle is 
speaking of future salvation when he says, 4i And so all 
Israel shall be saved ;" for this has not a single mark of 
future state reference which may not be found in chap. 
x ; 1-10, 13, and xi, 14. When the apostle says, " So all 
Israel shall be saved/' he is speaking of the same sal- 
vation that he is all through chapters x and xi ; and this 
salvation is secured by confessing, believing, and calling 
upon the name of the Lord. Chap, x, 9-13. As all must 
see, we think, this declaration of the apostle's has refer- 
♦ ence to that salvation which is the result of saving faith in 
Christ in this world, as preparatory to future bliss. 
Whether the time will come when in the progress of 
Christianity all the Jews who shall be then living will 
experience this salvation, or whether only a general re- 
ception of it, admitting of exceptions, is indicated, is a 
matter about which good men have differed. But oue 
thing is clear : all God's true and persevering Israel 
shall be saved, whether Jews or Gentiles bv birth, for 
Christ " has become the author of eternal salvation unto 
all them that obey him." Heb. v, 9. " All are not 
Israel that are of Israel," (Rom. ix, 6 ;) but " we are the 
circumcision [that is, the true Israel] which worship God 
in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no con- 
fidence in the flesh." Phil, iii, 3. We shall obtain light 
upon this subject by examining the prophecy referred to 
and in part quoted by the apostle. He declares, "All 
Israel shall be saved ;" and adds, ;< as it is written." 



Sec. 5.] UNIVERSALIS^! NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



31 



Where is it written ? In Isa. lix, 20, as follows : "And 
the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that 
turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord." Here 
we see who the Israel are to be saved and the condition*- 
ality of their salvation. They are those who "turn 
from transgression." This salvation, then, is predicat- 
ed of God's spiritual Israel, and not of the whole Jewish 
race. But should it be contended still that the apostle 
has virtually said that the Deliverer (Christ) promised 
he would tnrn away ungodliness from all the Jewish race, 
that is, all of them who have ever lived, now live, or may 
hereafter live, we ask, When is this to be accomplished ? 
Is it to be accomplished upon the Jews before death ? 
This will not be pretended, for tens of thousands of them 
have died in their iniquities, Universalists themselves 
being judges. Xow this mnst be brought about either 
before or after death, for we cannot possibly conceive of 
the soul as existing neither in the body nor out of it. 
As it must be admitted that all the Jews are not turned 
from their sins in this life, it follows that, if ever, they 
must be turned from ungodliness after death; and if so, 
ungodliness or sin, and consequently misery, must exist 
after death, and thus the favorite doctrine of the follow- 
ers of Messrs. Ballou and Whittemore, that death puts 
an end to sin and misery, is a fable. Truth never con- 
tradicts itself. All God's faithful Israel will be saved 
both in this world and that which is to come ; and there 
is no authority, as we conceive, for denying that the 
time is coming when all the Jews then living upon the 
earth shall embrace the Messiah. But this idea furnishes 
no evidence that all men, or even the Jewish race, shall 
be saved in the future state. In view of the very com- 
mon perversion of this text, how timely the rebuke of 
Mr. French, one of the ministers of the order, in a ser- 
mon before the Maine Convention of Universalists, as 
follows: "We, as a denomination, have advocated the 



32 Universalis^ xot of the Bible. [Part I, 



doctrine that all men shall be saved. But in our zeal to 
bring an abundance of evidence, have we not caused 
some of our proof-texts to bear the marks of violent 
wresting? For instance, these words of Paul have been 
adduced as proof that all the Jews shall be happy after 
death : " And so all Israel shall be saved." Rom. xi, 26. 
But does this passage have any more reference to theii 
future state than it does to the preservation of Noah 
and his family in the time of the flood % And vet, as if 
we had not enough of our own, we are at the expense of 
importing such arguments and such methods of proof." 
- — Banner, vol. ix, p. 5. 

VI. "He that is dead is freed from sin." Rom. vi, 7. 

If a man, availing himself of his Universalist license, 
dies by drunkenness or suicide, this text is called into 
requisition on the funeral occasion, to prove most con- 
clusively that he has been so wise as to rid himself of sin 
and all its consequences by his hasty departure. In an able 
work before us the perversion of this passage is exposed 
as follows : " Persons are said to be dead in several dif- 
ferent senses. A person is dead when the connection 
between body and soul is dissolved ; at other times a 
person is said, in Scripture language, to be dead when 
his soul has lost the favor of God; and at other times, a 
person is said to be dead who is crucified to the world 
and the world crucified to him. Now the question is, In 
which of these senses does the apostle use the word dead, 
in this text? I answer without hesitation, In the sense of 
being crucified to the world. Look at the context. See 
how the apostle introduces the figure: 'How shall we 
(Christians) that are dead to sin live any longer there- 
in V Ver. 2. Here, then, you see that persons who were 
dead were the living apostle and his Christian brethren 
at Rome, and the death which was upon them was 



Sec. 7.] UxiVERSALISM KOT OF THE BlBLE. 33 



idea is repeated : " Now if we (Christians) be dead with 
Christ, we believe that W£ shall also live with him." 
Here, then, you see that the apostle is not speaking of 
the death of the body, but, on the contrary, of that death 
which is a crucifixion to the world." — Russell. 

VII. "For none of us liveth to himself, and no 
man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live 
unto the Lord ; and whether we die, we die unto 
the Lord ; whether we live therefore, or die, we are the 
Lord's." Rom. xiv, 7, 8. 

Mr. Whittemore builds one of his arguments upon 
this passage to prove the salvation of all men, and says : 
" The terms dead and living evidently signify all the 
race. Of course all the human race are Christ's forever." 
— " Guide," p. 48. Here is another instance in which the 
children's bread is cast to the dogs. Now we say that 
these terras do not evidently signify ail the human race. 
Suppose that after a battle an officer should receive 
orders to repair to the field and take charge of " the 
dead and living ; " should we infer from that that he was 
to take charge of the whole human race ? By no means. 
Paul is speaking of Christ's lordship over believers and 
none else, as we conceive. The context binds us to this. 
He is addressing Christians and not all men. He is cau- 
tioning them against uncharitably judging each other 
concerning things indifferent, and adds, " For none of 
us." Who? All men? No, but Christians, u liveth to 
himself," etc. u For whether we live, we live unto the 
Lord ; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord." D 
all men live and die unto the Lord? Does the drunk- 
ard, the swearer, the neglecter, the self-righteous live 
unto the Lord, and do such die unto the Lord ? B it 
suppose we admit that Christ's lordship over the whole 
human family is intended, what then ? Does it follow 
as a conclusion that all will be holy and happy? Cer- 



34 



Universalis^: not of the Bible. 



[Part I, 



tainly not; for according to this assumption he is now 
Lord over the human race, and lias been for ages past, 
but the whole of mankind are not saved. This being 
the fact, we can see no reason why he may not exercise 
his lordship to all eternity, and still the sufferings of 
some of the race continue. For all men to be subjects 
of God's government is one thing, but for all men to be 
made holy and happy in the future world, is quite 
another. So we see that, take either view of it we 
please, Universalism cannot be possibly^ wrung out of 
the passage. 

VIII. " But the heavens and the earth which are now, 
by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire 
against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly 
men." 2 Pet. lii, 7. 

Instead of an explanation, as the purchasers of his book 
had a right to expect from the statement in his preface, 
the author of the " Guide " has given this striking text the 
go-by as follows : " This passage has been frequently used 
to prove the destruction of the material earth, and a day 
of judgment in the future state. We have shown repeat- 
edly in these pages that God's judgments are in the 
earth. But as this text is not generally adduced in sup- 
port of strict endless misery, we pass it here." lie then 
refers us to three or four works where he says the text 
is explained ; works which not one in a hundred of his 
readers will ever see. " God's judgments are in the 
earth." The reader will turn to Sec. LI, where this idea 
is examined. He says, "But as this text is not gener- 
ally adduced in support of strict endless misery, we pass 
it here." Observe, the apostle speaks not only of the 
day of judgment, but also of the " perdition of ungodly 
men." Do not Christians generally believe the perdi- 
tion of ungodly men to be endless misery ? Most certainly 
they do ; and Mr. Whittemore must have known it. We 



SeC. S.] UXIVEESALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



85 



go to Balfour's Essays, one of the books referred to by 
Mr. W., and he says, "This passage refers to the day 
of God's temporal vengeance on the Jews." — P. 260. 
He also states with much confidence respecting ver. 13, 
that "it is universally allowed that the new heavens and 
the new earth refer to the kingdom of the Messiah, which 
was to succeed the Jewish dispensation, and was pre- 
dicted in the Old Testament." — P. 261. Mr. Balfour was 
either wanting in honesty, or ignorant of the subject 
upon which he wrote, for we find by consultation that 
instead of its being " universally allowed" such commen- 
tators as Clarke, Scott, Chalmers, D wight, Wesley, Storr, 
Rosen miiller, and Benson are directly against him ; and 
yet this baseless assertion comprises the main force to 
be found in his evasion of this passage. Universalists 
profess to be full of wonder that the word hell occurs no 
oftener, it there is any future punishment taught in the 
, Bible. But we ask, if the glowing descriptions of judg- 
ment and punishment found so often in the Bible had 
their fultillment in the destruction of the Jews, is it not 
very strange that the expression of Jerusalem, or Jeru- 
salem's destruction, is never found in connection with 
such descriptions in the New Testament ? Yet such is 
the fact. Examine the context, and it will be seen that 
there is not the least evidence that the apostle is speak- 
ing of Jerusalem's destruction, or that those for whom 
he wrote once entertained the thought that that city 
would be spoiled by the Romans. The people addressed 
were Hebrew Christians, who had been educated in the be- 
lief of a future day of judgment and perdition of ungodly 
men. These doctrines were believed both among Jews 
and Gentiles. This is admitted by Universalist writers. 
Now can it be entertained for a moment that Peter 
would take this great event believed in by them, and use 
it as a figure to represent the destruction of one city ? 
He brings up historical facts, namely, the creation and 



86 



TTniversalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



the deluge, and then institutes a comparison, not between 
those events and the destruction of the Jewish city, 
but between those events and the passing away of the 
heavens and the earth, and the appearance of a new 
material system in their place. The thoughts are majes- 
tic, but they are not the dress of fiction or poetry. The 
context, the comparison, the language used, the belief 
of the people addressed, the absence of every thing indi- 
cating the Jerusalem catastrophe, all bind us to believe 
the apostle is speaking of the day of judgment, as com- 
monly understood, and of the eternal perdition of not 
merely Jewish men, but all ungodly men. 

IX. " And the times of this ignorance God winked at ; 
but now commandeth all men every -where to repent: 
because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will 
judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he 
hath ordained ; whereof he hath given assurance unto all 
men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." Acts 
xvii, 30, 31. 

The perversion would be so glaring that but few 
Universalists, it is believed, have ventured to refer this 
text to Jerusalem's destruction, for all would at once see 
the absurdity of making the apostle urge the Jewish 
calamity as a reason why the Grecians should repent of 
their idolatry. But certain men are never at a loss for 
expedients, especially when a text of Scripture stands in 
their way, so they will have it that the day of judgment 
appointed is the Gospel day. " Guide," p. 176. But we 
are not quite ready to receive this forced and unnatural 
interpretation. 

That Paul did not have reference to the Gospel day 
is evident from the fact that he uses the future tense. 
" He (God) hath appointed a day in the which he will 
judge," etc. Now the Gospel day had then come. Paul 
was then preaching the Gospel, and the Gospel had 



Sec. 9.] Universalis^ not of the Bible. 



37 



spread and was then spreading rapidly, as all know who 
are acquainted with the history of the Church. Fur- 
thermore, Paul when speaking of the Gospel day uses the 
present tense, and says, " Behold noio is the day of sal- 
vation." 2 Cor. vi, 2. Observe, St. Paul does not say 
to the Grecians, God hath appointed this day in which 
he now judges the world ; but he speaks indefinitely and 
of the future : " He hath appointed a day in the which he 
will judge." By this it will be seen that it is a perver- 
sion to apply these words to the Gospel day. 

But why should the apostle speak of the world's being 
judged in righteousness at a set time or in the Gospel 
day? According to Universalism, to talk of a day ap- 
pointed in which God will judge the world in right- 
eousness is the height of folly. Are we not told that 
every man is judged, rewarded, and punished according 
to his works as he passes along ? If this be so, the 
world is no more judged iu righteousness in the Gospel 
day than it was under any former dispensation. It is 
obvious, too, that the apostle here presents the day of 
judgment as a motive of alarm, as a reason why " all men 
every-where should repent." But what had the Athe- 
nians or any other people to fear from the Gospel day, 
especially if Universalism is the Gospel, which proclaims 
bliss for all, and hell for none in the future, whether 
they repent in this life or not ? Mr. Balfour enters into 
a labored Greek criticism, in his Essays, to make this 
passage mean that Christ is about to rule the Roman 
empire. But where do we find the fulfillment of this 
prediction? Did Christ ever rule the Roman empire? 
Are we pointed to the reign of Constantine ? We deny 
that in the sense in which Christ governs he governed the 
Roman empire then. His u kingdom is not of this 
world." But admitting that he did govern the Roman 
empire in the time of Constantine, his reign did not com- 
mence till A. D. 313, so that Mr. Balfour's about to rule 



38 Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



did not take place till about three hundred years after 
the declaration was made ! What influence could that 
day exert upon the Greeks at Athens to move them to 
repentance ? And how absurd the thought that Paul 
took this blind method to teach the Grecian philoso- 
phers that God had appointed a gospel day which was 
nearly three hundred years in the future in which Christ 
should rule the Roman empire! Admit the truth de- 
clared, namely, a future judgment, and all is clear. The 
Greeks admitted the doctrine of future retributions ; 
they believed that Minos and Radamanthus would be 
the judges, while the apostles taught that Christ would 
judge the world ; hence, when Paul spoke of the judg- 
ment of the world, they could but understand him as 
teaching a future judgment. We see by this how to 
account for the fact that they raise no opposition to the 
doctrine of a judgment, but when they heard of the 
resurrection, " some mocked." Ver. 32. The first named 
doctrine, so far as the idea of a future judgment is con- 
cerned, was received by them, while the resurrection 
was rejected. The apostle evidently speaks of the same 
judgment here that he does in Rom. ii, 16 ; xiv, 11, 12 ; 
2 Cor. v, 10, 11 ; Heb. vi, 2-9, 27. See by the index 
where these Scriptures are examined. 

X. " And have hope toward God, which they them- 
selves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of 
the dead, both of the just and unjust." Acts xxiv, 15. 

Strange as it may seem to some, this text has been 
adduced in proof of Universalism. " Paul hoped for the 
resurrection of all men, which he would not have done 
if a part were to be endlessly miserable ; therefore Paul 
was a Universalist." This, in substance, is the ar- 
gument. 

This argument is built upon the assumption that we 
believe that the resurrection procures and Axes the eter- 



Sec. 10.] TJ]STVERSALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 39 



nal doom of the sinner, whereas we entertain no such 
opinion. The wickedness of men in the present life is 
the cause of their suffering in the future state, and not 
the resurrection of the body. So we see, upon our prin- 
ciples, that Paul could hope for the resurrection without 
hoping that some would be eternally miserable. He is, 
however, giving a statement of his belief rather than an 
expression of his desire. Dr. Clarke's exposition of this 
text is correct. "And have hope toward God, etc. — I 
not only do not hold any thing by which the general 
creed of this people might be altered, in reference to the 
present state; but, also, I hold nothing different from 
their belief in reference to a f uture state ; for if I main- 
tain the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead it is 
what themselves allow." We have most striking evi- 
dence from this very passage that Paul was not a TJni- 
versalist. " And have hope toward God, which they 
themselves allow" What did the Jews allow concerning 
the resurrection ? Did they allow that all would be 
holy and happy in the resurrection ? Were the Jews 
who believed in a resurrection Universalists ? By no 
means ; for Universalists themselves assert that they be- 
lieved in the endless punishment of a part of mankind. 
iSTow, if Paul was a TJniversalist he must have believed 
that all would be holy and happy in the resurrection, 
which was a very different thing from the Jewish belief. 
How then, we ask, could he in truth declare that he be- 
lieved as they did concerning the resurrection ? Did 
Paul dissemble ? Or, rather, is it not rendered as clear as 
a sunbeam that he was not a TJniversalist, that it never 
entered his mind that all men were to be saved by the 
resurrection ? We have another instance where the 
apostle declared himself a Pharisee, and a believer in 
the resurrection, and thus secured to himself the favor 
of the Pharisees. Acts xxiii, 6-9. If Paul was a TJniver- 
salist he could not have failed of preaching the salva- 



40 Universalis*! xot of the Bible. [Part I, 



tion of all men in connection with the resurrection, for 
no Universalist in our day would be guilty of such an 
omission. But were the Pharisees, those stanch be- 
lievers in endless punishment, so friendly to a Univer- 
salist preacher as to espouse his cause on the announce- 
ment of the very doctrine which Universalists in our 
time contend teaches the salvation of all men, and de- 
clare (ver, 9) that " we find no evil in this man?" 
Reader, think of this. 

XI. ^ For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it ; 
and whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find 
it." Matt, xvi, 25. Parallels, Matt, x, 39; Luke xvii, 
33 ; John xii, 25. On the last named text, see Sec. 
LXVIIL 

We are told (" Guide." p 108) that the word rendered 
soul in the 26th verse is the same as the one in the 
25th verse rendered life, and that the life here spoken 
of is natural life. One doctrine cherished by Mr. Whit- 
temore is, that the future existence " cannot in the 
nature of things, as it seems to us, be affected by the 
conduct of men in this life." — Notes on Par., p. 354. If 
this be true, we a-k, How does the man who will lose 
his natural life for the sake of Christ find it, or (John 
xii, 25) " keep it unto life eternal," any more than he 
will save his natural life? Upon this principle the 
man's eternal life is just as secure who dies opposing 
Christ as is his who dies for the sake of Christ. These 
words of the Saviour present a pyramid in argument 
against the notion that man's conduct here does not 
affect his condition in the future, which all the sophis- 
try of its advocates cannot overturn. We have never 
seen an attempt to explain this text in any of their 
writings. It is found in the " Guide," but all the author 
does with it is to show that the Greek word rendered 
soul in the 26th verse is the same as the one rendered 



See. 12.] Uniyersaltsm not of the Bible, 



41 



life in this, and contends that both mean natural life. 
The obvious sense of the text is this : " Whosoever will 
save his natural life, by neglecting, through fear or 
otherwise, to do his Christian duty, shall lose it ; that 
is, shall lose his eternal life : and whosoever will lose 
his natural life for my sake shall find it ; that is, shall 
find eternal life.'" That we are correct in understanding 
eternal life as used in antithesis with the life of the 
body may be seen by the parallel passage, John xii, 25 : 
" He that loveth his life shall lose it, and he that hateth 
his life shall keep it unto eternal life." See Sections 
XII and LXVHI. 

XII. " What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole 
w T orld, and lose his own soul ?" Matt, xvi, 26. 

It is contended that the word soul in this text might 
be rendered life, to which we have no objection so far 
as our argument is concerned. But what life is meant? 
Not temporal life surely, for Christ is urging them to 
risk that in his cause ; for he says, " Whosoever will 
save his life, shall lose it ; and whosoever will lose his 
life for my sake, shall find it." Yer. 25. That there are 
two kinds of life named here is evident, for no man who 
saves natural life will lose it, and none who lose their 
natural life for Christ will save their natural life. All 
must see that the life gained by losing our natural life 
for Christ must be a life in the future state, that is, 
eternal life ; and also that the life lost by an unwilling- 
ness to surrender natural life for Christ must be eternal 
life. That we are to understand eternal life here as 
used in antithesis with natural life is clear from the 
parallel text. John xii, 25. (Sections XI and LXVII ) 

The Saviour is urging his disciples to take up their 
cross, and do their duty by following him through every 
danger; and as motives to stimulate to action, he as- 
sures them that if they w T ere called to be martyrs for 



42 Univeksaxism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



his sake, they should find eternal life after the death of 
the body; but if they would save, or seek to save, nat- 
ural life at the expense of conscience and casting aside 
the cross, they should lose eternal life kuthe world to 
come, lie then, to set it home w 7 ith force, inquires, 
u What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole w T orld, 
and lose his own soul ? " (life,) that is, his eternal life. It 
will require but little attention to the text and context 
to see that the loss of eternal life is indicated here. In- 
deed, no other construction can be given without reduc- 
ing it to nonsense. But admitting, as Universalis m 
contends, that the death of the body is intended, then 
the text lies with weight against that theory; for a 
question in this form is a strong negation. The sense 
is, that if a man in his avaricious pursuits were to gain 
the whole world and die in the effort, he would in real- 
ity gain nothing. Now all unite in the sentiment that 
heavenly bliss is inconceivably greater than every 
thing enjoyed in the present life, even by the most 
holy ; hence, the apostle says of himself " to die is gain." 

One form of Universalism, extensively taught in their 
books, says, this gain is for all; even though some 
gain the whole world by their wicked and avaricious 
schemes, yet by death they shall gain as much as Paul, 
for it teaches heaven for all and hell for none — that all 
shall be equal. (Sec. LXXX1X.) It goes further. It 
teaches that the more wicked men are here, the more 
will they gain by death, inasmuch as the wicked suffer 
more in this life than the pious, therefore escape more 
by death, and enter into the same bliss wdth the most 
exalted saints. The Saviour speaks of a character 
which shall gain nothing by the death of the body; but 
Universalism, even the more modern form of it, says 
all, whether holy or unholy, shall be gainers by death, 
inasmuch as it will free them from all the temptations 
and corruptions of the flesh, their spirits having entered 



Sec. 14.] Universalism not of the Bible. 



48 



the resurrection state, where they will be sure of per- 
fect bliss at its con summation. (Sec. CXL.) 

As Chiist is to be considered a competent teacher in 
these matters, the conclusion is, Universalis rn must be 
false, The Saviour is speaking either of the loss of 
future and eternal life, or of the loss of natural life; 
either of which is fatal to Universalist views. 

XIII. "And it shall come to pass in the last days, 
that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be estab- 
lished in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted 
above the hills ; and all nations shall flow unto it." Isa. 
ii, 2. 

We here give one of the " One Hundred Arguments " 
entire. " It is said that all nations shall flow into the 
mountain of the Lord's house — a figurative representa- 
tion of the covenant of the Gospel." — Guide, p. 39. 
Well, suppose it is such a representation, does it prove 
the salvation of all in the future state ? A man must 
be brought to a great strait to construct such an argu- 
ment to prove Universalism. The connection, as all 
may see who will consult the chapter, shows that the 
glorious triumphs of Christianity over heathen nations 
in this world is prophesied here, and not the salvation 
of all men in eternity. But, then, the word all is in 
the passage, so it must mean Universalism ! 

XIV. " I will also give thee for a light to the Gen- 
tiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends 
of the earth." Isa. xlix, 6. 

This is brought in argument by Mr. Whittemore to 
prove his favorite doctrine; and he says of it, ("Guide," 
p. 41,) u In this verse the prophet affirms that the bless- 
ings of the Gospel should not be confined to the Jews. 
' I will give thee for a light to the Gentiles ; ' for what 
purpose? Arswer: 'That thou mayest be my salva- 



44 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



vation unto the ends of the earth.' " Mr. W. then asks, 
"Is this consistent with the supposed fact that count- 
less millions of the human race shall never hear of the 
blessings of the Gospel ? " To adopt the same method 
with another text, it can be proved that the whole 
human family were made holy and happy nearly three 
thousand years ago. The Psalmist says, (Psa. xcviii, 3,) 
" All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of 
our God." Is this consistent with the supposed fact 
that millions of the human race are this moment sin- 
ning and suffering to an alarming extent ? Now if .by 
" salvation unto the ends of the earth " we are to under- 
stand the holiness of all in heaven, and if the Psalmist 
declared three thousand years ago that " all the ends 
of the earth hace seen the salvation of our God," it is 
quite clear that the whole human race were saved in 
heaven at that time ! The passage under considera- 
tion declares the general spread of the Gospel in the 
earth, and giving it a future-state reference to serve 
Universalism is a gross perversion. 

XV. " Our Father which art in heaven." Matt, vi, 9. 

As the question of Divine paternity involves several 
texts, it will be considered somewhat at length in this 
section. It is worthy of remark that those our Saviour 
taught to pray were his disciples, which is destructive to 
the idea that this prayer teaches that all men are the 
children of God. But it may be replied that Christ said 
to the multitude, (Matt, xxiii, 1-9,) that "One is your 
Father which is in heaven." Admitting that the Saviour 
meant to teach that God was the father of that multi- 
tude, then there is nothing gained to Universalism, un- 
less it can be shown that this relation secures the salva- 
tion of all men in the future state. This, then, is the 
point at issue : is God the father of all men in such a 
sense as to secure their final holiness and happiness? 



Sec. 15.] Unite esalism not of the Bible. 45 



We admit that there is a sense in which God is the 
father of all animate and inanimate creation, and of 
course the father of all men. He is the father of the 
rain, (Job xxxviii, 28,) that is, he produces the rain. 
The prophet inquires, (Mai. ii, 10.) " Have we not all one 
father ? Hath not one God created us ? " Said a 
heathen poet, and Paul adopted it, (Acts xvii, 28,) 
" For we also are his offspring." These passages teach 
us that God is a father in the sense of creator. Fre- 
quent appeals are made to human sympathy in connec- 
tion with this subject. 

The argument, brought into a small compass, stands 
thus : God is the father of all. Xo earthly parent 
would inflict endless punishment upon his children. God 
is better than earthly parents; therefore he will not in* 
flict such punishment upon his creatures, but will make 
them all holy and happy. To make human sympathy 
the ba-is of such a conclusion may deceive the unthink- 
ing ; but those who reflect, will see that the originators 
of such arguments are obnoxious to the charge of making 
the Almighty altogether such an one as themselves. 
This mode of argument lies with all its weight against 
matter of fact, namely, the present sufferings of the 
human race. It will avail nothing to say that present 
suffering shall result in the good of all in the end, that 
it is only a disciplinary process, such as a kind father 
would adopt for the gcod of his children. A kind 
earthly parent may be under the painful necessity of in- 
flicting discipline, because it is not in his power to reform 
his children by any other means ; but, we ask, is the Al- 
mighty under such necessity? Reasoning from the at- 
tributes of God, as Universalists are in the habit of 
doing, and asserting that ail will be saved because God 
has almighty power, infinite wisdom, and unbounded 
goodness, they cannot contend for a moment, with any 
consistency, that God is under the necessity of making 



46 



Universalis*! not of the Bible. [Part T ? 



the race of man suffer six thousand, or individuals scores 
of years, before he can make them holy and happy. 
Certainly it must have been as easy for the Almighty to 
have prevented evil as it is to destroy it. He stood in 
the relation of father, the same before Adam fell as he 
now does; and if the paternal character of God is not 
pledged to save men from committing sin now, how can 
we view it as a pledge that all shall be saved from the 
results of sin ? Again, if it is consistent with the 
paternal character of God that sin and misery should ex- 
ist six thousand years, it may be equally consistent 
w T ith his paternal character that some may suffer endless- 
ly. (Sec. CXXII.) Making human sympathy, which is 
ever liable to lead us wrong, the test of the principles 
of the Divine government, and the true index of the 
future condition of man, is not only dangerous to man, 
but is highly dishonorable to God; for he is made by it 
as bad as the worst of men. 

Let us illustrate this. The Lord rained fire and brim- 
stone upon the Sodomites and destroyed them. Would 
a kind earthly parent treat his children in this way ? 
Certainly not. Then God is not a kind father! A 
parent has a family of children all happy and in perfect 
health. If he is a kind parent he will ardently desire to 
perpetuate their happiness. But what should we think 
of him if, with a full knowledge of the consequences, 
he suffers a disease to come among them which mars 
their beauty, destroys their health, and renders them 
wretched all their days, when he could have prevented 
it as well as not? We should think him a fiend incar- 
nate. Now if human action and sympathy are to gov- 
ern our view r s of God, what character shall we give 
him ? The first pair were holy and happy ; but God 
not only failed to prevent sin, but, according to some 
leading Universalist writers, is the author of it, (Sec. 
LXXXIV ;) and millions are this moment groaning with 



Sec. 15.] Universalis^ not of the Bible. 



47 



untold agonies as a consequence. To accord with Uni- 
versalist notions, how are we to view T him ; as a kind 
father, or a fiend incarnate ? The latter, most certainly ; 
and thus God is dishonored. Again, what should we 
think of the parental character of a man who having the 
power to mold the will and affections of his son into 
perfect love and obedience to himself, and thus render 
all painful discipline unnecessary, instead of so doing 
should suffer his son to remain in disobedience, and con- 
tinue to inflict the stripes? We should think him a 
hard-hearted wretch. Universalists represent God, by 
their arguments upon his perfections, as able not only to 
have prevented evil, but to destroy itnow ; yet instead of 
doing so, he has been inflicting stripes upon his children 
for thousands of years. Would a kind father do so ? 
Never. So God is not a kind father ! 

In view of such reflections, as a result of the reason- 
ings of this class of writers, might Jehovah not inquire 
concerning them as he did of certain wicked men an- 
ciently, " If I then be a father, where is mine honor ?" 
Mai. i, 6. The sympathies of our nature can never be a 
just rule by which to determine what is right in the 
Divine government, for earthly parents are not always 
governed by true mercy nor strict justice. The son of a 
former governor of Kentucky was clearly convicted of 
murder, but was saved from the gallows by a pardon 
from his father, when it is evident he would have with- 
held pardon from another man under the same circum- 
stances. Here paternal sympathy was not only arrayed 
against justice, but also against mercy; for this murderer 
was suffered to go at large, and, as we have been in- 
formed, took the life of another man. This teaches us 
the folly of making sympathy the rule to determine what 
God will do, w r ho does not act from sympathy, but from 
his own immutable justice. Universalism would have 
God a father, and nothing else, led about by sympathy 



48 



Ujstversalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



and caprice, just as earthly parents are. But the Bible 
not only represents him as a father to his children, but 
as a governor, lawgiver, and judge, who will take venge- 
ance and pour out wrath upon the ungodly. 

In the time of our Saviour the wicked Jews set up 
an argument in their favor from the Divine paternity, 
and said, " We have one Father, even God." John viii, 
41, 42. The difference between this and the claim set up 
by Universalists seems to be this : while both base their 
safety upon the Divine paternity, one confined the 
Divine favor in this respect to the Jews, and the other 
extended it to all men. The Jews counted themselves 
perfectly safe, notwithstanding their great wickedness, 
because God was their father. Universalists consider 
all men, no matter how vile and wicked, perfectly safe 
because God is their father. But the Saviour denied 
this claim of the Jews, and said, "If God were your 
Father, ye would love me ;" and furthermore he told 
them, " Ye are of your father the devil and whether 
or not if he were now upon earth he would treat those 
with less severity who are wallowing in the mire of sin, 
yet basing their claims of heaven on the Divine paternity, 
the reader must determine. If all men are the children 
of God in such a sense as to secure their eternal salva- 
tion, then Ely mas, the sorcerer, (Acts xiii, 10,) was a 
child of God ; for his wickedness, according to Univer- 
salism, could not destroy that relation. Paul then was 
wrong in calling him a child of the devil, and should 
have said, " O full of all subtilty and mischief, thou 
child of God, thou enemy of all righteousness ! " If the 
Bible teaches that ail men, by virtue of the relation 
they stand in to God as Creator, are candidates for future 
bliss, then we are bound to believe it ; but where is such 
instruction given ? One "thus saith the Lord" upon 
this subject would do more upon candid minds than all 
the arguments based upon the sand of human sympathy 



Sec. 15.] XJniversalism kot of the Bible. 



49 



that have ever been constructed. Christ called the 
wicked Jews the children of the devil, and Paul called 
Elymas a child of the devil; and John says, " In this the 
children of God are manifest, and the children of the 
devil ; whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God." 
1 John iii, 10. Now, according to TJniversalism, a man 
may be a child of God and a child of the devil at the 
same time ! But let us view this subject more particular- 
ly in the light of the Scriptures. Gal. iv, 4, 5 : " But when 
the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, 
made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them 
that were under the law, that we might receive the adop- 
tion of sons." Now if all are the children of God by 
creation, in such a sense as to secure eternal bliss, they 
were so before the Saviour was given, for God was their 
Father in this sense prior to the gift of his Son. 

Here is a thought, then. If all were sons, and their 
salvation sure as a consequence, where was the necessity 
of the great sacrifice of Heaven in giving his Son to suf- 
fer and die that they might receive the adoption of 
sons ? This single text demolishes at once all the ar- 
guments that our opponents have ever built upon the 
paternal character of God. Take the idea of adoption. 
What is it ? It is not making a son of a son, but it is 
making a son of one who is not. John i, 12 : " But as 
many as received him, to them gave he power to become 
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." 
Here it w T ill be seen that they were not the children of 
God, but had power given them to become such. Rom. 
viti, 14 : "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, 
they are the sons of God." Are ail men led by the 
Spirit of God ? But few will assert this. The passage 
clearly implies that all men are not led by the Spirit of 
God, and that those who are not led by the Spirit of 
Gocl, are not the sons of God. Rom. viii, 17 : a And if 
children, then heirs ; heirs of God, and joint heirs with 

4 



50 



TJjSTTEESALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



Christ ; if so "be that we suffer with him. that we may "be 
glorified together." This supposes that some are not 
the children of God, and that such as are not children 
are not heirs of God, neither are they joint heirs with 
Christ. The apostle says, "If so be that we suffer with 
him, that we may be glorified together." Now, accord- 
ing to Universalism, all men are sons in the sense to be 
heirs, and of course all will be glorified with Christ, 
which plainly contradicts the apostle's reasoning. 
Which shall we believe ? That this has respect to future 
glory is clearly established by the Scripture following 
the last quoted text. (Sec. CI.) What folly to argue 
the salvation of men from a relation which does not con- 
stitute them heirs of heavenly bliss! How clear it is 
from these passages that salvation depends upon the re- 
lation saints sustain to God by adoption, and not by any 
relation we sustain to him by creation. Again, " For ye 
are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." 
Gal. iii, 26. This was not spoken of all men, but of 
Christians, as will be seen by the context, and shows 
that all are not the children of God in a true Christian 
sense. We might extend our remarks, and produce other 
Scriptures against the assumptions of Univ ersalism 
and to sustain our views, but deem it unnecessary, as 
we conceive what is presented to be a complete refutation. 
Remember, reader, that it is not even pretended that 
there is one text in the Bible that teaches directly the 
salvation of ail men in the future state as the result of 
the Divine paternity ; but it is enforced by appeals to 
sympathy, and inferences drawn from a mode of reason- 
ing most unsound and sophistical. 

XVI. " Therefore I endure all things for the elect's 
sa^e. that they may also obtain the salvation which is in 
Christ Jesus, with eternal glory." 2 Tim. ii, 10. 

^Yhat is the object of the apostle's intense anxiety and 



SeC. 17.] UNIVERSALIS}! NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



51 



labor? It is that the elect, or Christians, may obtain 
the salvation which is in Christ, with eternal glory. It 
seems that Paul never once thought that all men were 
sure of eternal glory. In view of this p ] ain declaration, 
how false is TJniversalism ! How unlike is this to the 
teachings of it- advocates, who boldly tell us that all are 
sure of Christ's salvation and eternal glory ! Which 
will you receive, reader, the teachings of these men, or 
those of Paul, the Christian apostle, who received his 
instructions from heaven ? Yet we are told, with great 
confidence, that Paul was a Universalist ! The great 
labor of his professed successors in this faith is, to make 
the people believe that they cannot possibly fail of eternal 
glory ; and let one of them express a doubt upon this 
point, and labor, like Paul, that men may obtain it, and he 
would at once be cast out of the Universalist synagogue. 

XVII. " For I will not contend forever, neither will I 
be always wroth : for the spirit should fail before me, 
and the souls which I have made." Isa. lvii, 16. 

" Is this declaration consistent with the doctrine of 
endless misery? According to that doctrine, will not 
God contend forever? will he not be always wroth ?" 
So inquires Mr. TThittemore, ("Guide," p. 41) ; and this 
forms one of his ,c One Hundred Arguments." If the read- 
er will turn to the passage in the Bible he will find that 
this is not predicated of all men in eternity, but of those 
who put their trust in the Lord, (ver. 13,) and of those 
who are of a "contrite and humble spirit." Ver. 15. It 
has respect to the gracious chastisements of God in this 
world, and on compliance with his requirements these 
chastisements were to cease, and they were to " possess 
the land and inherit his holy mountain," (ver. 13;) " while 
the wicked are like the troubled sea which cannot rest." 
Ver. 20. The subject upon which the prophet is speaking 
is not the salvation or damnation of all or any men in 



52 



Universalis^: >~ot of the Bible. [Part I, 



the future state, and to base an argument upon it to 
prove the salvation of all men in the next world can 
hardly be called 'sophistical. It is another instance of 
glaring perversion. 

XVIII. " "With whom is no variableness, neither 
shadow of turning." James i, 17. 

" Xow faith is the substance of things hoped for." 
Heb. xi, 1. 

Before us is a tract, by A. C. Thomas, containing a 
set of questions artfully constructed, designed to bewil- 
der the minds of those who think but little, and in that 
state to plunge them into the quagmire of Universalism. 
The following is a sample : 

"Is God 4 without variableness or even the shadow of 
turning ? ' 

" If God loves his enemies now, will he not always love 
them? If God will always love his enemies, will he not 
always seek their good?" 

In reply we ask, Is God without variableness or even 
the shadow of turning ? If God hates a certain class of 
persons, and is angry with them now, (Psa. v, 5, 7, 11,) 
will he not always hate and be angry with them ? If he 
always hates and is angry with them, will lie not 
always seek their hurt ? and if so, will they ever be holy 
and happy? See Sec. XCTY, also XXXVI. Again 
Mr. T. inquires, " Is faith 'the substance of things hoped 
for?' Heb. xi, 1. Do you hope for the truth of the 
doctrine of endless misery ? If endless misery be not a 
thing hoped for, can it form any part of the Christian 
faith ? » m 

In reply w^e ask, Is faith " the substance of things 
hoped for ? " Do you hope for the truth of the doctrine 
of misery in the present world ? If misery in this world 
is not a thing hoped for, can it form any part of the 
Christian's faith ? Did primitive Christians hope for the 



Sec. 19.] Uniyersalism not of the Bible. 



53 



dreadful calamities which befell the Jews, including in- 
nocent women and children, at the siege of Jerusalem? 
If it was not a thing hoped for, could it have formed 
any part of their faith ? Yet Universalists will have it 
that the destruction of that city formed a very impor- 
tant part of their faith, so much so that almost every 
terrific thing they uttered referred to that event ! The 
logic is this : If a man cannot hope that his friends or 
himself will suffer in the State prison, the existence of 
such a place where criminals are punished must form 
no part of his belief! Such reasoning is well worthy 
the cause it is designed to support. Again he asks, " If 
God would save all mankind but cannot, is he infinite 
in power? If God can save all mankind but 'will not, is 
he infinite in goodness?" What of force there is here 
lies with all its weight against matter of fact, namely, 
the present sufferings of our race ? Is it said that pres- 
ent sufferings are disciplinary, and are the means God 
adopts to secure good to man in the end ? We beg 
leave to ask, If God tooidd save all men without present 
suffering, but cannot , is he infinite in power ? If he can 
save all men without present suffering, but will not, is 
he infinite in goodness ? With the license this writer 
takes, Universalism may be swept away at a stroke. 
We have seen a string of questions upon the same plan 
with Mr. TVs tract, by a crafty atheist, concerning the 
being of God and divine revelation, and we should 
think Mr. T. had taken that writer as his beau ideal. It 
were an easy matter to answer the whole tract, and 
turn its force upon his own theory, if space would admit. 
It presents a fine specimen of the priestcraft of Uni- 
versalism. 

XIX. " Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord 
from henceforth : Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may 
rest from their labors ; and their works do follow them." 
Rev. xiv, 13, 



54 



Universalis*! not of the Bible. [Part I, 



Here a class among the dead are named as enjoying 
exalted bliss. They are such as die in the Lord. But 
Universalism, one form of it, asserts that all are equally 
blest, and all rest from their labors, and this sentiment 
is taught at the present time in its approved theological 
books and received by many in the order. But the 
progressionist admits a difference in the future. He 
says that all enter there with the same character that 
they have here, and that salvation is secured there by 
the same means as here. Instruction and punishment 
are the means used. But who are to come into this 
saving process ? Mr. Thayer answers this. He says 
that " all men are saved in a greater or less degree after 
death," and that this resurrection process is " necessary 
to the completeness and happiness of every soul." Mr. 
Thayer of course contends that all punishment is a bless- 
ing, as the design is to save. Inspiration did not con- 
struct this text to suit such a theory. It should have 
read thus: "Blessed are all men that die, whether they 
die in the Lord or not ; they rest from their labors by 
going where they will be stirred up by the lash !" (Sec. 
CXL.) How true it is that no form of Universalism is 
of the Bible. 

XX. " And as it is appointed unto men once to die, 
but after this the judgment : so Christ was once offered 
to bear the sins of many ; and unto them that look for 
him shall he appear the second time without sin unto 
salvation." Heb. ix, 27, 28. 

This plain text has been exceedingly troublesome to 
Universalists. That it taught a future judgment w r as 
never called in question till about 1818. Since that, 
various expedients have been resorted to in order to de- 
stroy its force. Mr. Balfour, in controversy with Mr. 
Hudson, says of it, a He (Mr. Hudson) will then ask me, 
what judgment comes after death ? I answer, The judg- 



SeC. 20.] UxiVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



55 



merit God pronounced on all mankind, (Gen. iii, 19,) 
' dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.' Here 
is a judgment which comes after death, which is visible, 
universal, certain, and disputed by no man." — Essays, 
p. 271. So when the unconscious body turns to dust, 
that is the judgment ! ! This needs no comment. To 
show the liberty taken with the Bible by these men of 
many inventions we give the following upon this pas- 
sage, found in a sermon by W. A. Stickney : 

" As it is appointed unto men (human kind) once to 
partake of flesh and blood, whereby the soul is subject 
to spiritual death, and after this the judgment of justi- 
fication by a spiritual, immortal life, when the earthly 
tabernacle to which the spirit was first united is put off 
in natural death ; so Christ once took on him flesh and 
blood, and when his body was thus put off, was once 
offered to bear (away) the sins of the many ; that is, to 
make known, as the Mediator, or witness of the new 
covenant, the way in which full deliverance from moral 
death, and the power of sinful influence, is to be 6b- 
tSLmed."—Tmm2iet, No. 723. 

This, as all must see, is a theological curiosity. It is 
but justice, however, to say that these once true inter- 
pretations have become nearly obsolete in the order. 
The most popular method to get rid of the troublesome 
text is the following: "As it is appointed unto men 
(the high priests) once to die, (in their sacrifices,) and 
after this the judgment, (which they bore upon their 
breast ;) so Christ was once offered (that is, in a sacri- 
ficial manner), to bear the sins of many." — Guide, p. 268. 

It appears that the credit of this invention belongs to 
Mr. H. Ballou. See Section CXXXII. 

Our business now is to expose the sophistry of this 
stereotyped exposition, so often put forth with great 
confidence by Universalist ministers both great and 
small. In their criticisms they tell us that the definite 



56 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



article should be placed before the noun men, so as to 
read. " As it is appointed unto the men once to die, 55 
etc. To this we do not object. But who are the men 
appointed to die ? Not the Jewish high priests, as they 
affirm, for, 

i. They were never appointed to die, either figura- 
tively or literally, as such. We call upon TJniversalists 
to show us such an appointment from the Scriptures. 
They often refer us to Exod. xxviii, 29, 30, which reads 
thus : 

"And Aaron shall bear the names of the children of 
Israel in the breastplate of judgment upon his heart, 
when he goeth in unto the holy place, for a memorial 
before the Lord continually. 

u And thou shaft put in the breastplate of judgment 
the Urim and the Thummim ; and they shall be upon 
Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the Lord : and 
Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel 
upon his heart before the Lord continually." 

Not a word is said here, or elsewhere in the Bible, 
about the appoiutment of high priests to die figurative- 
ly, in their sacrifices ; and it is an unwarranted assump- 
tion to say that they were so appointed, or that they so 
died. The high priest typified Christ's priesthood, but 
did Christ die as pkiest? Certainly not. He died as 
sacrifice, and was typified in this respect, not by the 
high priest but by the sacrificial lamb, offered by the 
high priest. Hence he is called "the Lamb of God." 
See, also, 1 Pet. i, 18, 19 ; also Heb. vii, 22, 25, where 
the apostle shows that Christ, as priest, " ever liveth to 
make intercession " for his people. 

2. The high priests were appointed to enter "into the 
holy place every year, with the blood of others." Ver. 25. 
But the men spoken of in the text were appointed once 
to die. It is said, " As it is appointed unto men once to 
die, so Christ was once offered." But if the men refer 



StC. 20.] TTmVEBSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



57 



to the Jewish high priests, and the death to their sacri- 
fices, then it must read thus, "As it is appointed unto 
the high priests once to die every year in their sacrifices, 
so Christ was offered once every year" and "then must 
he often have suffered since the foundation of the 
world," (ver. 25,) and thus is the apostle contradicted 
by this exposition. But who are the men appointed 
once to die? Answer. The many, (ver. 28,) for whom 
Christ died. " Christ was once offered to bear the sins 
of many." The adjective "many "is here put for the 
noun "men." Many men, or " the many" as it is in 
the original. Now, as the adjective "many" is here 
used for, or instead of, the noun "men," all that is nec- 
es ary to express the exact sense is to use the noun 
"men" instead of the adjective "many," that is, the 
men instead of the many. The sense of the text, then, 
is fully expi^essed thus: As it is appointed unto the men 
once to die, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins 
of the men, Now who are the men for whom Christ 
died ? Answer: " This is my blood of the New Testa- 
ment, which is shed for many, (or the many, Gr.,) for 
the remission of sins." Matt, xxvi, 28. "He, by the 
grace of God, tasted death for every man." Heb. ii, 9. 
Thus we see that the many, or the men, for whom Christ 
died are all men, every man. 

We are now prepared to state the argument thus : 

1. The men appointed to die, named verse 27, are the 
many for whom Christ died, named verse 28. As it is 
appointed unto the men once to die, so Christ was once 
offered to bear the sins of the men — that is, the men ap- 
pointed to die. 

2. The many, named verse 28, for whom Christ died, 
were all men, " every man." 

3. Therefore the men appointed to die are all men, 
and not the Jewish high priestSj to die figuratively, as 
Universalists assert. 



58 



Universalis^ not of the Bible. [Part I, 



So we see that their own criticism, by which they add 
the definite article the to the common translation, goes 
to destroy the exposition they give of this passage. 
Here we state, without fear of successful contradiction, 
that the expression the men is never used in the Script- 
ures to designate the Jewish high priests, but, on the 
contrary, they are called high priests to distinguish 
them from the men, that is, the generality of men. 
Heb. v. 1. 

This exposition contains the following false assertions : 

1. It asserts that the high priests were appointed to 
die in their sacrifices, that is, figuratively ; which is 
false. It is mere assumption, without a shadow of proof 
in the Bible. 

2. It makes the text assert this : As the high priests 
died figuratively in their sacrifices, so Christ was offered 
figuratively in his ; for it says, as the high priests, so 
Christ, thus making the death of Christ figurative in- 
stead of real ! 

3. It asserts that the high priests were appointed once 
to die, or offer sacrifices ; that is, only once. This con- 
tradicts the apostle, for he says, (ver. 25,) that they en- 
tered u into the holy place every year, w 7 ith the blood 
of others." 

4. It asserts that the high priests died figuratively 
themselves, which is false, and again contradicts the 
apostle ; for he says, (ver. 25,) they offered " the blood 
of others" 

5. It makes the text assert that, as it is appointed 
unto the men, that is, the high priests, once to die, so 
Christ was once offered to bear the sins of the many, or 
the men, who are the Jewish high priests. Thus limit- 
ing Christ's atonement to the Jewish high priests ! 

6. It asserts that the phrase the men is used to desig- 
nate the Jewish high priests, when it is never so used 
in the Bible. 



SeC 20.] U^IVERSALISM 2\OT OF THE BlBLE. 



59 



To these thoughts add the fact that this Epistle was 
addressed to those who had been educated in the belief 
of a future judgment, and also, that among all the ex- 
positors of Scripture, for nearly eighteen hundred years, 
whose writings have come down to us, no one ever dis- 
covered this to be the meaning of the text ; and that 
even Mr. Ballon, who it seems was so exceedingly anx- 
ious to get rid of the text, never made his discovery 
until he had been a constant student of the science of 
divinity for tw r enty-nine years, twenty seven of which 
he was a Universalist preacher. (Sec. CXXXII.) Take 
all these things into account, we say, and who does not 
see that the exposition given is unnatural, absurd, and 
false ? 

The passage under consideration is too plain to need 
any comments, were it not that Universalists have so 
distorted its features. It will be seen, by the context, 
that the points connected with this passage are the two- 
fold appearing of Christ, which the apostle was laboring 
to establish. Christ had once appeared as a sin-offering, 
" to put away sin." He is to appear a " second time 
without sin," that is, without a sin-offering, " unto sal- 
vation," to those who look for him. 

The substance of the apostle's reasoning may be stated 
thus : All men are appointed to one temporal death, and 
only one ; therefore it was necessary for Christ to offer 
himself once, and only once, to redeem them ; and as 
all men are accountable for the improvement they make 
of this grace during their probation, and are to be 
judged after death, that is, after their probation has 
closed, so Christ will appear a second time to judge 
them, and to such as look for him, (not ail men,) or be- 
lieve in him, w T ill he appear unto salvation. Christ came 
at the end of the Jewish dispensation as Redeemer. He 
will come at the end of the Gospel dispensation as judge. 

The apostle is speaking, doubtless, of the same event 



60 



UXIVEESALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part X, 



in this text that he is in chap. vi 5 2, of the tame Epis- 
tle, where, in the order of his arrangement, in giving a 
summary of Christian doctrines, he places u eternal 
judgment" after the " resurrection of the dead." 

The passage teaches just what it seems to teach to an 
unsophisticated mind. It remains a truth, then, that 
men must die, and after this the judgment. 

With the exception of a few thoughts, this refutation 
was furnished by Rev. Charles Munger. 

XXI. " After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, 
which no man could number, of ail nations, and kindreds, 
and people," etc. Rev. vii, 9, 10. 

This passage has been pressed into the service of Uni- 
versalism. u Pro and Con," p. 105. But does it say one 
word about the salvation of all men ? Does it say, " I 
beheld, and lo, all men stood before the throne, and be- 
fore the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palms in 
their hands," crying, Salvation to our God, etc. ? Noth- 
ing like it. A particular class possessing peculiar quali- 
fications is spoken of, and not the whole race of men. 
When it is shown that the whole of Adam's posterity 
will come up before the throne, having their robes washed 
and made white in the blood of the Lamb, Universalists 
will have done something to their purpose. What do 
Universalists believe concerning the efficacy of the blood 
of Christ to save in the future state ? Just nothing. 
(Sees. XXIX and CV.) 

XXII. " If any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a new 
creature." 2 Cor. v, 17. 

The author of the " Guide," p. 48, constructs an argu- 
ment to prove his theory as follows : u Paul saith, as in 
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 
1 Cor. xv, 22. " If any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a 
new creature." 1 Cor. v, 17. Hence, if all shall be 



Sec. 23.] Uniyersalism xot of the Bible. 



61 



made alive in Christ, they shall all be new creatures in 
the resurrection of the dear]. The text in 2 Cor. v, 17, 
refers to the s f ate of the regenerated man in this world, 
and not to the resurrection, as may be seen by turning 
to the passage. The text from 1 Cor. xv, 22, refers to 
the resurrection of the body, and not to the renewal of 
the heart. These Scriptures, referring to different sub- 
jects altogether, are brought together in good Univer- 
salist style, and are made to teach the salvation of all 
men in the future state. What cannot be proved in this 
way? In Gen. iv, 8, we read, "Cain rose up against^ 
his brother Abel and slew him." In Luke x, 37, it is 
said, " Go, and do thou likewise." Hence, to murder a 
brother, as Cain did, is to obey the Scriptures ! 1^ not 
one argument as good as the other ? Can a system of 
truth, given from heaven, require such work with the 
Bible to sustain it ? Never. For an examination of 
1 Cor. xv, 22, see Sec LXXXIX. 

XXIII. " And every creature which is in heaven, 
and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are 
in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Bless- 
ing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that 
sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and 
ever." Rev. v, 13. 

It is seldom that we see an effort to prove Universal- 
ism from the Scriptures without the use of this text. 
But does it prove the doctrine ? Let us see. We have 
been told for the hundredth time that Prof. Stuart said, 
in controversy with Dr. Charming, that spiritual worship 
is here intended, and also that here we have an instance 
of the common periphrasis of the Hebrew and Xew 
Testament writers for the universe, and the inference 
drawn by Uni verbalists is, that if all the universe wor- 
ship the Lamb, then the whole human race will be saved. 
That the whole universe is here intended is doubtless 



62 



Uniyeesalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



correct ; but, with all deference to Prof. Stuart, with the 
Bible for our guide, we must dissent from his opinion 
that spiritual worship is intended. If spiritual worship 
is meant, then we have the whole universe, planets, an- 
gels, men, beasts, birds, fishes, creeping things, in a word, 
all animate and inanimate creation, engaged in it, speak- 
ing a language and ascribing blessing, honor, glory, and 
power to God and the Lamb fand, to carry out the Uni- 
vers ilist idea, these are all to be holy and happy ! The 
human race form but a small part of the universe. 
Christ sent his apostles to preach the Gospel to every 
creature, (Mark xvi, 15 ;) but the subject, the implied 
ability of those to whom it was sent to receive or reject 
it, shows that by this moral agents are intended who are 
inhabitants of the earth ; but in the case before us, not 
only is every creature which in heaven, earth, under the 
earth, and in the sea, but also all that are in them, are 
giving these ascriptions. But should Universalists cease 
to quote Prof. Stuart and change their ground, as they 
sometimes do, and take the position that the human race, 
and not the whole universe, is intended, then they gain 
nothing. Observe, the assumption in the argument is, 
that the revelator had a view of all men saved in the 
future state. Now if human beings are intended by 
"every creature" and their so-called spiritual worship is 
evidence of their salvation, a difficulty is at once encoun- 
tered by the fact that these creatures, or human beings, 
doing this worship, are not only in heaven, but on the 
earth, and wider the earth, and in the sea! But when 
a!l shall be saved in heaven, will a part of them be on 
the earth, and under the earth, and in the sea? Yet 
to such a conclusion are we driven by such premises. 
The truth is, this figurative passage, from the most fig- 
urative book in ail the Bible, was never designed to 
teach the salvation of all, or even any, men in the future 
world. Its sole design is to give a luminous description 



SeC. 24. J UxiYEESALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 



63 



of the glory of Him who sitteth upon the throne, and 
of the Lamb ; hence the whole universe is personified 
and represented as uniting in ascriptions of praise to 
them. The Psalmist calls upon all animate and inani- 
mate creation to praise God, (Psa. cxlviii,) but did he 
once think that this was equivalent to calling all the race 
of Adam to be holy and happy after death ? Mr. Hosea 
Ballou, 2d, rebukes his brethren for their gross perver- 
sion of this text thus : " TJniversalistg have not wholly 
ceased to quote as proof of the final reconciliation of 
all men this text, (Rev. v, 13.) a text which, if we mis- 
take n:>t their views concerning the general plan of 
this book, they can by no means suppose, on careful re- 
flection, to refer to a period yet future." — U. Expositor, 
vol. iii, p. 196. 

Mr. Sawyer, a preacher of high standing in the 
order, says, u It has been, and may well be, doubted 
whether any part of the Apocalypse relates to the future 
and the eternal world." — Pen. of Sin, p. 16. Tet 
Universalist preachers continue to use this text to prove 
their doctrine, just because the phrase " every creature" 
is in it. Such is their consistency. 

XXIV. " Now we . . . know that this is indeed the 
Christ, the Saviour of the world." John iv; 42, also 1 
John iv, 14. 

It is inquired, "How can he be the Saviour of the 
world without saving it ?" — U. Ill and Def., p. 268. 
This class of writers can see no possible way in which 
Christ can be the Saviour of the world unless every 
human soul is saved. Let us help them a little upon 
this point. All are not saved now, nor will they be, if 
Universalist views are correct, till the resurrection. 
Now observe, the text under consideration was spoken 
eighteen hundred years ago, and he was declared then 
to be the Saviour of the world. But millions have re- 



64 



UXIYEESALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



mahied unsaved from that to the present, and if Christ 
has heen the Saviour of the world for eighteen centuries 
and millions remain unsaved, we ask, By what process 
in reasoning will it he made to appear that some may 
not remain unsaved forever, and yet Christ be the 
Saviour of the world? A man may by office be the 
surgeon of a whole regiment, but it does not follow that 
he must perform a surgical operation upon every one in 
the regiment. So Christ is the given or appointed 
Saviour of the world, but the effectual Saviour of those 
only who obey him. Heb. v, 9. 

XXY. " The wicked is driven away in his wicked- 
ness : but the righteous hath hope in his death." Prov. 
xiv, 32 ; also Prov. xi, 7. 

The twist given to this text to destroy its force is 
this: "In character he (the wicked) is far away from 
Christ and God. He does not enjoy their companion- 
ship. He is in a peculiar sense without Christ and 
without God."— Banner, March 23, 1850. So it does not 
refer to the dying hour, but to the practice of wicked- 
ness in this life. He is driven away from Christ and 
God here. To be driven implies involuntary action, 
that is, force. But is not a departure from God, or sin, 
a voluntary act? Most surely, or it is not sin. And 
then who drives the wicked away from Christ and God 
in this world? The idea is repugnant to the whole 
Gospel plan, which, instead of driving the sinner from 
Christ and God, invites and welcomes him to them. 
Every unsophisticated mind will see that in this text 
the conditions of the righteous and the wicked in death 
is contrasted. " The wicked is driven away : " he goes 
reluctantly into the future world, is unwilling to die. 
He "is driven away in " not out of or from his wicked- 
ness, but carries the same moral character into eternity 
he bore when death found him. Of similar import is 



Sec. 26.] Univeksalism xot of the Bible. 



65 



Prov. xi, 7. 44 When a wicked man dieth, his expecta- 
tion shall perish; and the hope of unjust men per- 
isheth." Xow we ask, Universalism being true, what 
more the righteous man may hope for in death than the 
wicked man ? Does the righteous man hope for heav- 
enly bliss '? May not the wicked do the same ? Does 
he hope to escape the ills of this life ? 3Iay not the 
wicked men hope the same ? Universalism says to all 
men, without respect to character, " You may have hope 
in your death." But the Bible restricts the hope to the 
righteous only. The Bible nowhere says the wicked 
hath hope in his death. But this dogma says to the 
desperately wicked, "You may hope for a greater deliv- 
erance by death than the righteous, inasmuch as you 
are more wicked here and will fare just as well here- 
after!" 

This, in substance, is the teaching of at least a half a 
score of Universalist books before us, highly com- 
mended by leading men in the order. The progressive 
system says to the vilest man, " Your circumstances 
will be greatly improved by death, being freed from 
the flesh, and you are sure to come out all right in the 
end." (Sec, CXL.) Which shall we follow, Universal- 
ism or the Bible ? 

XXYI. "To you who are troubled rest with us," etc. 
2 Thess. i, 7-10 ; also 1 Thess. iv, 15-17. 

Universalist truth upon this passage used to be promul- 
gated by Father Ballou as follows : " This fire is that 
in which Christ is revealed, and it comes from heaven. 
Is not this the fire with which he baptizes ? Is not the 
fire revealed to destroy the hay, the wood, and the 
stubble ? Undoubtedly ; and is the endless misery of 
the sinner to be proved from the action of that divine 
fire which alone is able to effect his salvation ? But the 
objector says, The text reads for itself, 4 Who shall be 



66 



Uniyersalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



punished with everlasting destruction from the presence 
of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; ' and if 
the sinner is punished from the presence of the Lord 
he cannot be blessed in it, where there are joys for ever- 
more. Answer : There is not a place in the universe 
which is out of the presence of an omnipresent God; 
therefore to put a sinner from the presence of the Lord 
he must be put out of the universe. But what means 
the text? asks the reader. Answer: That divine light 
and heat which destroys moral darkness, and purges 
man from all sin, is from the presence of the Lord as a 
production of the divine presence : as it is written con- 
cerning the man of sin, Whom the Lord shall consume 
with the breath of his mouth, and destroy with the 
brightness of his coming. If God were not able to pun- 
ish the sinner in the manner described in the text I 
should despair of his salvation ; but blessed be that di- 
vine Spirit of light and love ! it truly takes such venge- 
ance on the sinner as is worthy of a God. 5 '— T. on 
Atonement, p. 183. 

This positive truth has long since become obsolete, 
and now this class of writers, to which Mr. B. belongs, 
are just as positive that this passage had its fulfillment 
in the destruction of the Jewish polity by the Romans 
as they once were, that "punished with everlasting de- 
struction" " flaming fire" and " taking vengeance" 
meant, that divine light and heat which destroys moral 
darkness and purges man from all sin ! ! 

In order to give plausibility to his interpretation, the 
author of the " Guide " remarks as follows : " Who were 
those that troubled the Thessalonians ? Answer : The 
Jews, See Acts xvii, 5-7. See also 1 Thess. ii, 15, 
where Paul, speaking of the Jews who had persecuted 
the Thessalonians, says : 6 Who both killed the Lord 
Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us.' " 
Here a falsehood is presented by withholding a part of 



Sec. 26.] Universalis^: not of the Bible. 



67 



the truth. We turn to 1 Thess. ii 5 14, 15, and read as 
follows : " For ye, brethren, became followers of the 
Churches of God which, in Judea are in Christ Jesus : for 
ye also have suffered like things of your own country- 
men, even as they have of the Jews : who both killed 
the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have 
persecuted us." By this we learn that their " own 
countrymen " persecuted the Thessalonians as well as 
the Jews named. Acts xvii, 5-7. Did Mr. Whittemore 
know no better than to present the subject in this light, 
or did he do it to deceive ? Judge ye. The Greeks, 
then, as well as the Jews, troubled them. 

When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven 
with his mighty angels," etc. This, we are told, was 
fulfilled when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem. In 
reply we say, There is nothing in the history of that 
event which corresponds with the description given by 
the apostle. How was Christ " revealed from heaven," 
the place to which he ascended after his resurrection? 
What is there connected with the Jerusalem catastrophe 
to answer to this ? The Roman armies, we are told, were 
the angels that accompanied him ! And were those fierce 
polluted heathens the holy (Matt, xxv, 31) angels of the 
immaculate Jesus? Did they come from heaven with 
him ? 

iC Taking vengeance on them that know not God, and 
that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
Were the Jews at Jerusalem the only people who knew 
not God ? The Scriptures represent the Jews as distin- 
guished from all other nations by their knowledge of the 
true God, and Paul, in writing to this same Church and 
giving them directions how to walk, says : " Xot in the lust 
of concupiscence, as the Gentiles which know not God." 
1 Thess. iv, 5. The Gentiles, then, " know not God," 
which precludes the idea that the apostle had exclusive 
reference to the Jews. This being the case he could not 



68 



Ujstiversalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



be teaching Jerusalem's destruction, for that was a pun- 
ishment upon the J ews, and not upon the Gentiles. At 
his coming, Christ is to take vengeance on those who 
"obey not the Gospel." Were the Jews at Jerusalem 
the only people who disobeyed the Gospel? Admitting 
that they were, it does not follow that this was spoken 
of Jerusalem's overthrow, for observe, this epistle was 
written sixteen years before that event, and vast num- 
bers of those in Judea who were living in disobedience 
to the Gospel when Paul wrote were dead long before 
the city was destroyed ; and so far were they from suf- 
fering vengeance, that at that time they were enjoying 
heavenly bliss — that is, if Universalisra be true. But 
Gentiles disobeyed the Gospel as well as Jews, and per- 
secuted Christians, as we have seen. See also Acts, chap- 
ters xvi and xix. Now as vengeance was taken upon 
the Jews only in the destruction of Jerusalem, it follows 
that the apostle does not refer to that event. 

" Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction, 
from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his 
power." 

" God permitted them (the Jews) to be driven away 
from their own land by the Romans under Titus." — 
Guide, p. 192. This, we are informed, is the everlasting 
destruction from the presence of the Lord. Upon this 
we submit the following: 

1. History informs us that at the taking of Jerusalem 
by Titus one million one hundred thousand of the Jews 
perished in that city, and two hundred and fifty thou- 
sand elsewhere. These, then, instead of going " from 
the presence of the Lord" were brought immediately 
into his heavenly, blissful presence — that is, if Univer- 
salism is true ! The reader can see the sense attached 
to the expression "presence of the Lord" by the New 
Testament writers, and by Paul in particular, by turn- 
ing to Heb. ix, 24 ; 2 Cor. v, 8 ; also Jucle 24. 



SeC. 26.] UxiVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



69 



2. As to the Jews being driven away from their place 
of worship, it is not in point at all. Of whom was the 
apostle speaking ? Not of the Jews as a nation or a 
class, as has been shown, but of a class of wicked per- 
sons who " know not God and obey not the Gospel ; " 
including Gentiles as well as Jews. Were Gentiles 
driven away from their place of worship and religious 
privileges at the time of Jerusalem's destruction ? The 
Jews are not mentioned in the whole epistle. No more 
need be said. 

" Rest with us." 

We are told that after the Jewish power was broken 
by the Romans, Christians in all parts of the world had 
a glorious season of rest from persecution, and that 
this is the rest that Paul refers to here. But we look in 
vain to the history of that period for any such days of 
tranquillity to the Church as these writers assert. The 
Saviour, in Matt, xxiv, 9-16, which Universalists apply 
to Jerusalem's destruction, represents that event as a 
time of great temporal calamity to Christians ; and his- 
tory informs us that " for two hundred and sixty years 
from the death of Christ they had but short intervals of 
rest from persecution ; for when the emperors themselves 
were not sanguinary, there were always inferior magis- 
trates, who, under some pretense or other, harassed the 
poor inoffensive Christians. It is supposed that three 
millions perished in three centuries." — Eel. JEJnc, Art. 
Persecution. Was this the glorious rest that the faithful 
were promised ? It is a " rest wdth us." It is not true 
that Christians at Thessalonica were to rest with Paul 
and others as a result of Jerusalem's destruction ; for 
Paul suffered death under Nero at least four years before 
Titus sacked that city, and many others to whom and 
of whom he wrote were dead before that event. It is 
worthy of remark that Universalists, in order to fritter 
aw T ay the true sense of our Saviour's words, Matt, x, 28 ? 



70 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



(Sec. XCI,) contend that he is there giving instruction 
concerning the Jews and the Roman power ; that the 
disciples need not much fear the Jews, as they were 
quite harmless, having not legal power to take lite, 
but that they were to fear the Roman power. But in 
order to get rid of the passage under consideration they 
will have it that the Jews are the terrible ones, and 
that when their power should be broken, Christians 
should enjoy great rest and peace under the Roman 
power! In the one case the Romans are the lion and 
the Jews the lamb, and in the other the Jews are the 
lion and the Romans the lamb. Any way to push for- 
ward Universalism. 

Of this revelation of Christ we read as follows : " Now 
we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him." 
2 Thess. ii, 1. Those to whom this was addressed were 
one thousand miles from Jerusalem, and there is no evi- 
dence whatever that these or any other Christians were 
gathered at that city at that time ; but instead of gath- 
ering, it is a matter of history that Christians fled from 
Jerusalem " at the signs of approaching danger." Paul 
and others, instead of being gathered at Jerusalem's 
destruction, were resting in the bosom of their God, hav- 
ing been put to death by that Roman power of which 
we hear so many fine things. Before Christ's coming 
there was to be a great apostasy in religion. Paul cau- 
tions his brethren not to think that the day of recom- 
pense of which he had been speaking was near at hand ; 
for, says he, " That day (the day when the Lord Jesus 
shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire, taking 
vengeance on them that know not God,) shall not come, 
except there come a falling away first, and that man of 
sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and 
exalteth himself above all that is called God." 2 Thess. 
ii, 4, 5. Observe, the coming of Christ spoken of in 



Sec. 26.] TJXIYERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



71 



this epistle was to be subsequent to the fulfillment of this 
perdition. Ver. 1 and 8. Now we have no account 
whatever of an apostasy in the Christian Church, prior 
to the destruction of Jerusalem, which in the least 
answers to this description. Furthermore, it would 
seem that if the assumptions and abominations of popery 
are predicted anywhere in the Bible they are here, 
which is an additional evidence against Universalist 
views, showing that the coming of Christ is yet future. 
Having exploded the absurdity of applying this passage 
to the destruction of the city of David, we now proceed 
to show that it does teach the final and personal coming 
of our Lord Jesus Christ to raise the dead and to judge 
the world. This will be seen, 

1. Because the circumstances mentioned in the text 
meet not in any other coming of Christ. The reader 
has already seen the disposition once made of it by Mr. 
Ballou, and also the interpretation of more modern 
times, and that the latter is as truthful as the former, 
and no more so. 

2. Because it is evident that the same advent of 
Christ is spoken of here that is spoken of in 1 Thess. 
iv, 15-17 : "For this we say unto you by the word of 
the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the 
coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are 
asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven 
with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with 
the trump of God ; and the dead in Christ shall rise 
first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be 
caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the 
Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 
It would be an easy matter to show that if the coming 
of Christ here named refers to the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, then his coming named in 1 Cor. xv. refers to the 
same event; and then truly the resurrection would be 
" past already," which would overthrow the faith of 



72 UXITEESALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



Universalists. We could easily prove that they both 
refer to the same event, but are saved the trouble by an 
admission of Mr. Whittemore. " Now when shall he 
(Christ) visit the earth bodily? Answer: At the res- 
urrection of the dead. See Acts i, 10, 11, and 1 Thess. 
iv, 16."— Guide, p. 36. The author of the "Guide" is 
right for once. He adduces the sixteenth verse of the 
fourth chapter of First Thessalonians to prove that 
Christ will visit the earth bodily at the resurrection of 
the dead, which, of course, is taught in 1 Cor. xv, as no 
Universalist will deny. These events have never taken 
place. It would be fatal to the Universalist theory to 
admit that they have. The bodily and personal coming, 
then, of our Lord Jesus is yet future. The question now 
comes up, Is the apostle treating upon the same advent 
of Christ in 2 Thess. i, 7-10 that he is in 1 Thess. iv, 
15-17? We answer, He most certainly is, for, 

1. The epistles were both written by the same apostle 
to the same Church, and as in the first letter he speaks 
of Christ's coming to raise the dead, we safely conclude 
that the passage in the second letter relates to the same 
event, unless there is something in it to teach us a dif- 
ferent application. 

2. Instead of a different application being suggested, 
there are striking points of resemblance, too striking to 
admit of a doubt, but they both relate to the same ad- 
vent of Christ. 

1. One says, "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from 
heaven the other declares, " The Lord himself shall 
descend from heaven." 

2. One says, he " shall be revealed from heaven with 
his mighty angels ;" the other, that he shall descend 
" with the voice of the archangel." 

3. One declares that he shall recompense rest to them 
that are troubled " when he shall come to be glorified 
in his saints ;" the other says that the saints shall be 



Sec. 27.] Ukivebsaijsm >~ot of the Bible. 



73 



caught up " to meet the Lord in the air : and so shall we 
ever be with the Lord." 

Xothing can be plainer than that these both relate 
to the same great event. In the first epistle the apostle 
speaks more particularly of t«he righteous, Id the sec- 
ond, both of the wicked and the righteous. In the first 
he asserts the resurrection of the dead ; in the second, 
the punishment of the wicked. These facts teach us 
most conclusively that some men will be punished with 
everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord 
and from the glory of his power after they are raised 
from the dead. See Sec. XLI, where these passages are 
collated with Matt, xxv, 31, and 1 Cor. xv. 

XXVII. "For we must all appear before the judg- 
ment seat of Christ ; that every one may receive the 
things doxe in his body, according to that he hath 
done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore 
the terror of the Lord, we persuade men." 2 Cor. 
v, 10, 11. 

This, too, refers to the judgment that came upon the 
Jewish nation when Jerusalem was destroyed ! Ct Bal- 
four's Essays," p. 300 ; " Guide," p. 187. The words in 
small capitals are supplied by the translators, with which 
Mr. Whittemore is somewhat displeased, and will have 
it that the translators were under the influence of 6< long- 
nurtured prejudices." Were we to look no further than 
Mr. W.'s u Guide," we should conclude that this text 
stood perfectly independent of what preceded it, for he 
has very wisely, for his own cause, said nothing about 
the preceding verses. By turning to the chapter, it 
will be seen that the translators had the strongest of 
reasons from the context for adding the supplied words. 
The apostle's theme is the separation of the soul from 
the body by death, and he very naturally cites his breth- 
ren to the event which should take place subsequent to 



74 



Univebsalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



this separation, when the "bodies of men should be raised 
and all should be judged. Without the supplied words 
it reads thus : " For we must all appear before the 
judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive 
the things in body, according to that he hath done, 
whether good or bad." Now what is gained to Uni- 
versalism by discarding the supplied words ? Does it 
now say that w^e must all appear before the judgment 
seat of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem ? Does it 
now teach that all are rewarded and punished in this 
world ? Will there not be a body of some kind after 
the resurrection of the body ? and if so, may not men 
receive for their works " in body " in a future life ? To 
say that the apostle is calling the attention of his Co- 
rinthian brethren to the judgment to come upon the 
Jewish nation is most false and absurd. 

1. This epistle was addressed to Christians, chiefly 
Gentiles. — Home. 

2. Corinth was nine hundred miles from Jerusalem. 

3. This epistle was written at least twelve years be- 
fore Jerusalem was destroyed. 

4. Universalists have repeatedly told us that the de- 
struction of Jerusalem was a judgment upon the Jewish 
nation for rejecting the Messiah, and of course w T as not 
a judgment on the Gentiles. It comes to this, then : 
The apostle sits down, twelve years before the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, and writes to a Church composed 
chiefly of Gentiles, nine hundred miles from Jerusalem, 
as follows: For we (Paul, the Christians at Corinth, 
and others) must all appear before the destruction of 
Jerusalem by the Romans, that every one may receive 
the things in body according to that he hath done, 
whether good or bad ! Did " every one " of the Church 
at Corinth, mostly Gentiles, and nine hundred miles dis- 
tant, appear at Jerusalem and there receive in body ac- 
cording to that they had done ? Many of their bodies 



SeC. 28.] XJXIYEESALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 



75 



were inoldering in the dust long before that event. 
AVas Paul there (he says, " ice must all," etc.) to receive 
in his body? He died under Nero four years before. 
Again, if we may credit the authors TTniversalists quote, 
no Christian appeared before Jerusalem's destruction, 
but fled from the place at the " signs of the approaching 
danger." — Notes on Par., p. 352. Mr. Whittemore usu- 
ally manifests a remarkable confidence in the gullibility 
of his readers, but here he falters somewhat. As if he 
feared confining this to Jerusalem's destruction would 
be too large a dose even for his patrons, he adds, " At 
the destruction of the Jewish nation there was a general 
judgment among the nations of the earth." — Guide, 
p. 187. This is thrown in so that the judgment may 
extend on° nine hundred miles to Corinth ; but this helps 
not the matter at all, for how could those long since 
dead, like Paul, stand before that judgment seat ? But 
where does Mr. W. find his authority for this bold as- 
sertion ? He gives none, for the reason that he has 
none. This was doubtless manufactured by some one 
in the Trumpet office, Boston. History says nothing 
about such a general judgment among the nations. 
That the apostle teaches a judgment in a future state is 
evident from the language, the context, and the absurd- 
ity of any other construction. 

XXVIII. "All the ends of the earth shall remember 
and turn unto the Lord ; and all the kindreds of the 
nations shall worship before thee." Psa. xxii, 27. 

a That all mankind will at last believe the Gospel, the 
Bible does explicitly declare," "Guide," p. 269; and 
then this text is quoted as proof. Now this has no more 
reference to the salvation of all men in the future world 
than it has to the brimstone which fell upon the Sodom- 
ites. This remembering and turning unto the Lord must 
take place either in this world or the next. None will 



76 



XTniveesausm xot of the Bible. Part I, 



assert that universal salvation takes place in this world. 
It follows, then, that forgetfulness of God, and aliena- 
tion from him, together with unbelief of the Gospel, will 
exist in the future state ; and as these can "be regard- 
ed in no other light than sins against God, it also follows 
that sin will exist in the future state, and consequently 
misery. How does this comport with the doctrine taught 
heretofore so generally, and note cherished by many 
among Universalists, namely, that death puts an end to 
sin and its consequences? 

This text indicates the progress and triumphs of 
Christianity in this world, and is perverted just because 
some men are willing to be deceived by a jingle of 
sounds. The word all is in the passage, hence it must 
mean universal salvation ! 

XXIX. " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into 
the world, and death by sin," etc. Rom. v, 12, 17-21. 
The reader will please turn to the passage. 

As a portion of this passage is sometimes pressed into 
the service of Universalism, we shall examine it in refer- 
ence to some of the prominent doctrines of the order, 
and see if they gain any support from it. The apostle 
says (verse 12) that sin and death entered the world by 
one man, and so death passed upon all men, etc. ; and in 
verse 15, " For if through the offense of one many be 
dead" etc. Again, verse 17, " For by one man's offense 
death reigned by one." By the "one rum" Adam is 
meant, verse 14. Well, what death do Universalists 
admit that Adam died, of which mention is here made? 
Do they admit that it was the death of the body ? Xo : 
for they tell us that man was created mortal at first. 
Do they admit that it was eternal death, or a death in- 
volving future and endless punishment ? Xo : for they 
deny that Adam or any of his posterity were ever ex- 
posed to such a death ; for if it were onee admitted that 



SvQ. 29.] UNIVERSALIS^! NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



77 



all or any men were thus exposed, then all their argu- 
ments against such punishment from the attributes of 
God are destroyed at a blow ; for if endless punishment 
was ever consistent with the attribute of God, it may 
be so to all eternity, as Universal] sts well know. But 
what death is meant ? It is a moral death. Adam died 
to innocence the day he partook of the forbidden fruit. 
'•U. 111. and Def.," p. 76. 

Did this moral death extend beyond this present life ? 
We hear Mr. Whittemore more than forty years ago as- 
serting that " Universalists now know of no condition 
for mau, beyond the grave, but that in which he is as the 
angels of God in heaven." — Trumpet, April 2, 1831. And 
who has not heard their perversion of Rom. vi, 7 : "He 
that is dead is freed from sin," to prove that the most Gocl- 
di>honoi ing, polluted rake in creation is freed from sin 
and all its consequences as soon as death does its work. 

At this point let us inquire, Do the Universalists ad- 
mit that Christ came into this world to save us in an- 
other ? To answer this question we will introduce Mr. 
Ballou, the father of modern Universalism, and Mr. 
Whittemore, his right hand supporter. These men have 
done more by way of originating and propagating Uni- 
versaiist doctrines than any other two men in the nation. 
Mr. Ballou says, " That Christ came into this world to 
save us in another, is contrary to all the representations 
found in the Scripture." — Lee, p. 14. Mr. Whittemore 
says, The truth is, we do not read one word in the 
Bible about saving men from punishment in the future 
state." The evils from which Jesus came to save men 
are in this world, and for this reason he came into this 
world to save them. — " Guide," p. 254. Xow according 
to these teachers, all the blessings named in the passage 
under consideration, as a result of Christ's death and 
obedience, are confined to this world ; so we are at lib- 
erty to paraphrase verse IS, as follows: "Therefore, as 



78 



TJniveesausm not of the Bible, [Part I, 



by the offense of Adam judgment came upon all men to 
moral death in this world, even so by the righteousness 
of Christ the free gift came upon all men unto moral life 
in this world ! " This, as all must see, is a legitimate 
conclusion from the premises; and all that Universalism 
can derive from the text and its connection is, that all 
men shall be made morally alive in this world, which is 
just nothing ; for neither moral life nor death can fix the 
future condition of man, according to this dogma ; and, 
furthermore, such a conclusion is contrary to matter of 
fact. Is it said that the blessings gained by Christ are 
more extensive than those lost by Adam ? No matter 
how extensive the blessings, they are all confined to this 
world, inasmuch as they are by Christ, (verses 15, 17, 21,) 
and he came, as Universalist guides assert, not to save 
men in the future world, but in this. As it respects the 
reign of grace " through righteousness unto eternal life 
by Jesus Christ our Lord," (verse 21,) that, according to 
Mr. Whittemore and others, cannot refer to the future 
state, for " This phrase (eternal life) is not used by the 
sacred writers to signify endless bles>edness beyond the 
grave, but that state of spiritual life and peace which 
was the immediate effect of faith in the Gospel of Jesus 
Christ." — Guide, p. 140. Xow if this phrase is not 
used by the sacred writers to signify bliss beyond the 
grave, of course it is not so used here, and accordingly 
the use of the phrase in verse 21 confines the blessings 
named to this life. Universal salvation is the holiness 
and happiness of all our race, not in this life, but in the 
future ; so it will be seen at once that these men, by their 
own interpretations, deprive themselves of the right to 
bring any of the last eleven verses of this chapter to 
prove their doctrine. But as inconsistent as it is, as 
there is universal language employed, we find them 
weaving in a text now and then from this passage to 
give plausibility to their arguments. 



SeC. 29.] UlSTVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



79 



The design of the apostle is, to compare Adam's sin 
and Christ's obedience in respect to their virtue and 
efficacy, and to show that the efficacy of Christ's obedi- 
ence must needs be much more abundant than that of 
Adam's sin. He says, verses 18 and 19, "Therefore, as 
by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to 
condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one 
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sin- 
ners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made 
righteous." By this we learn that all men were passive- 
ly condemned, in some sense, (not to endless misery,) by 
Adam's offense ; eyex so, mark that, the free gift came 
positively upon all men to justification of life, or free- 
dom from condemnation here, (not in heaven.) Thus as 
far as man was made a sinner in Adam, he is made 
righteous in Christ, and no further. And as nothing 
which Adam did condemned the sinner to misery in the 
future state, independent of his own acts, so nothing that 
Christ has done can make him holy and happy without 
obedience to God ; for he has become " the author of 
eternal salvation," not to all our race, but " uxto all 
them that obey him." Heb. v, 9. Thus we see that 
through the benevolence of God in the gift of his Son, 
all men are now saved from the condemnation of Adam's 
offense ; and all moral agents may, by obedience to Christ, 
be saved eternally. But it is inquired, If any are doomed 
to endless punishment for their sins, how can it be recon- 
ciled with verse 20, where it is declared that " Where sin 
abounded grace did much more abound ? " Mr. Isaac, (p. 
68,) answered this in his day ; and it is as forcible now 
as then. He says, " Mr. Wright is mistaken as to the 
meaning of the word sin in this passage. He supposes 
it means all the sins of all men in all ages. But if 
this were its meaning, the apostle's assertion in the next 
verses (chap, vi, 1, 2,) would not be true ; for if we con- 



80 



Universalis:*! xot of the Bible. [Part I, 



tinued in sin, grace would abound, and the more sin we 
committed there would be the more grace ; but the 
apostle enters a caveat against putting any such sense 
upon his words, and says, c God forbid.' If sin in this 
place is to be understood in Mr. Wright's comprehensive 
sense, even then grace could only abound as much as 
sin ; for how it could abound more than all sin, I confess 
I have not penetration enough to discern ; but the 
apostle says 'much more.' By sin, in this text, I un- 
derstand the sin of Adam, which hath reigned unto 
death, verse 12. Grace abounds as much as this sin, by 
justifying us from it as soon as we are brought into ex- 
istence, verse 18. And it abounds much more by taking 
away all the personal sins of believers, making them 
righteous, and conducting them to a glorious immortali- 
ty. This interpretation is confirmed by verses 15, 16. 
Here the sin is called the 'offense of one,' and the 
abounding of grace consists not only in the justification 
of many (all) persons from the sin of Adam, but also in 
the justification of all believers from their many per- 
sonal offenses. In this view, the words c much more ' may 
be understood with strict propriety, if the pardon of all 
the offenses committed by millions of believers may be 
considered as a matter of great importance." 

It would be easy to show that the passage we are 
examining stands directly opposed to several points 
strongly insisted upon by Universalists. We have 
here clearly taught the vicarious character of Christ's 
death, and this based upon the fallen condition of our 
race as a consequence of Adam's sin — doctrines which 
Universalists have no belief in generally. In the last 
verse we have the great design of the plan of redemp- 
tion in these words : a That as sin hath reigned unto 
death, even so might grace reign through righteousness 
unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." Let the 
Son of God himself decide the question whether or not 



SoC 30.] UxiVERSALTSM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



81 



ho died to give this eternal life to all moral agents un- 
conditionally. Hear him: "As Moses lifted up the 
serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man 
be lifted up: that whosoever belteveth in hira should 
not perish, but have eternal life." John iii, 14. 15. 
Again, verse 36 : " He that believeth not the Son, shall 
xot she life ; bat the wrath of God abideth on him." 
Does Paul teach that eternal life is secured to all un- 
conditionally ? Xo; but only those "who by patient 
continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and 
immortality," shall have " eternal life." Rom. ii, 7. 
Again, "I endure all things for the elect's sake, that 
they may obtatx the salvation which is in Christ Jesus 
with eternal glory." 2 Tim. ii, 10. What folly in the 
apostle, if eternal glory is secured to all ! What should 
we think in our clay to hear a TJniversalist minister ex- 
pressing himself thus? It will be seen by the con- 
struction given by Universalists to the death by Adam, 
their denial of the future-state efficacy of Christ's death, 
and their rendering of the phrase " eternal life," that 
they utterly deprive themselves of any support to their 
theory from this passage. But should they change 
their ground, as some of them can with great ease, and 
admit that Christ came into this world to save men in 
the next, and that the expression " eternal life " means a 
life of bliss in the future, then they gain nothing for their 
cause here ; for, as we have seen, the Son of God from 
heaven has declared against the unconditionality of bis 
salvation, and says of some that they " shall not see life; " 
and the apostles reiterate the same in various ways. 

XXX. "And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before 
was preached unto you : whom the heaven must receive 
until the times of restitution of all things, which God 
hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets, 
since the world began." Acts iii, 20, 21. 

6 



82 



Uniyeesalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



Mr. Whittemore ("Guide," p. 36) gives his testi- 
mony in full in favor of Christ's visit again to the earth 
bodily at the resurrection of the dead; (Sec. XXVI;) 
a doctrine, by the way, which is scouted by Univer- 
salists generally ; and even the same writer, on page 
186 of the same book, says, "The coming of the Lord 
took place, as we have said, during the apostolic age." 
And when Paul (2 The?s. i, 7.) declares that "the Lord 
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven," the verv senti- 
ment Mr. W. favors, as above stated, we are told by the 
same writer that it took place when Jerusalem was de- 
stroyed I— Guide, p. 189. The restitution of all things 
is to be consummated before the coming of Christ. 
New if the coming of Christ, so often named in the 
Bible, occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem, then 
the restitution spoken of must have been closed up at 
that all-important event; and if the restitution indicates 
the holiness find happiness of ~all men, then all the 
human race were saved nearly eighteen hundred years 
ago ! Seeing the consequences of such a reference, the 
author of the " Guide " was forced to the admission 
made concerning the bodily coining of Christ, in order, 
if possible, to press the text into the service of his 
cause. But in this he utterly fails. The very point in 
debate is assumed, namely, that this restitution of all 
things is the salvation of all our race in eternity. By 
the restitution of all things, may be understood the 
restoration of all things which will ever be restored in 
this world, which is to be effected by the Gospel. It is 
written, Matt, xvii, 11, " Elias truly shall first come, and 
restore all things." Did the Saviour mean to teach that 
before he could begin his work John the Baptist must 
first save all men? No: but he was to restore all to 
be restored by his office and mission as the harbinger 
of the Messiah. (Sec. LXXIY.) In the case before us, 
the restoration or restitution of all things refers to the 



Sec. 31.1 UxiVERSALISM NOT OE THE BlBLE. 



83 



work of the Gospel in this world ; and when this shall 
be fully accomplished, according to all which God hath 
spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets, then shall 
Christ come bodily from heaven to raise the dead. 
For observe, " The heaven must receive," or contain 
him, until this restitution ; and so far is the apostle 
from teaching the salvation of all men by it, that he de- 
clares, respecting its progress, that " it shall come to 
pass that every soul which shall not hear that Prophet, 
(Christ,) shall be destroyed from among the people." 
See Sec. I, where this subject is further explained in 
connection with the Abrahamic promise. 

XXXT. "And in this mountain shall the Lord of 
hosts make unto all people a feast," etc. Isa. xxv, 6-10. 

"He will wipe away tears from off all faces." Does 
this include the whole human race? We answer, Xo. 
In reading the Bible, we should bear in mind that lan- 
guage expressive of a mathematical whole is sometimes 
employed when a universal whole is not intended. In 
Matt. iii. 5, 6, we learn that " all Judea and all the 
region round about Jordan" were baptized of John con- 
fessing their sins. But did every man, woman, and 
child confess their sins and receive John's baptism? 
Xo sane mind will assert this. "All nations comp-issed 
me about : but in the name of the Lord will I destroy 
them." Psa. cxviii, 10. The Psalmist's enemies were 
numerous, and he expected to overcome them, is the 
sense. And it is well understood that Universalists, 
when their case requires it, can readily make all men 
a part of the race. (Sec. XLI.) As it respects the ex- 
pression "all faces" it is said, (Joel ii, 6,) "all faces 
shall gather blackness," and in Ezek. vii, 18, "Shame 
shall be upon all faces." But are these expressions pre- 
dicated of all the race of man ? By no means. YTe 
must learn the application of such language either by 



84 



Uniyersalism xot of the Bible. [Part I, 



the connection in which it is found, or by other Scrip- 
tures treating upon the same subject. If we no to the 
connection in which it is declared, "He will wipe away 
tears from off all faces" we shall find it is used in a 
restricted sense. 

By the mountain where the feast is provided, we 
understand the Church of God in this world, and not 
the heavenly state ; for the Prophet adds, (verse 10,) 
"For in this mountain shall the hand of the Lord rest, 
and Moab shall be trodden down under him even 
as straw is trodden down for the dunghill." If we 
take this passage literally as it roads, it refers to the 
deliverance and prosperity of the Jews, and the destruc- 
tion of the Moabites. But if we take a figurative view 
of it, then we shall see ushering in upon our benighted 
world the light of the glorious Gospel dispensation, 
providing a spiritual feast for all people, and removing 
the covering, or the vail of idolatry and superstition, 
from all nations. It teaches, too, the ultimate deliver- 
ance and salvation of God's people, and the destruction 
of his enemies. Any one who will pay attention to the 
whole passage must see that what is said here is not 
spoken of all men in the future world; for it should be 
always borne in mind that it is not in this world that 
universal salvation is alleged to take place, but in the 
future. Now we ask, Are the Moabites to be destroyed, 
to be trodden down under the Lord, even as straw is 
trodden down for the dunghill, in the future state? 
This thought alone destroys the text for Universal] sm ; 
for if men are trodden down or destroyed in the future 
world, then are they not saved. This conclusion is in- 
evitable, if the Prophet is speaking of the condition of 
men in the future state. This, however, is not the fact ; 
and Universalists must admit that it is not or give up 
their theory. The joy, sorrow, and triumph of the 
Church in this world are taught here. We are then 



SeC. 32.] UXIYERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



85 



referred to the resurrection. " He will swallow up 
death in victory," (verse 8 5 ) when the work of the 
Church militant shall be closed up. But does this teach 
that God will put an end to all spiritual or moral death 
at that time ? Xo : for we learn from the apostle that 
this refers to the resurrection of the body, (1 Cor. xv, 
54;) and as the Scriptures nowhere teach that the soul 
is to be cleansed by the resurrection of the body, and 
thus produce holiness and happiness, this of course 
1 r jves nothing in favor of Universalism, even though it 
were admitted that the resurrection of all men is in- 
tended. All men, doubtless, will be raised at the end 
of time, with the exception of those who shall experi- 
ence a change equivalent to being raised. But the 
resurrection of the people of God is indicated here. 
This view harmonizes with the connection and also with 
the apostle. 1 Cor. xv. See Sec. LXXXIX. It is 
worthy of remark that the Saviour uses the same figure 
of a feast or supper (Luke xiv, 16-24) to represent the 
Gospel provisions ; and speaking of the treatment those 
provisions received when offered to some, the Son of 
God himself, who is represented by the lord of the feast, 
declares of such rejecters that " they shall xot taste 
of my supper.' 1 This we conceive to be far from favor- 
able to the idea that all men shall enjoy this feast forever. 

XXXII. " Xow T no chastening for the present seem- 
eth to be joyous, but grievous ; nevertheless, afterward 
it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them 
which are exercised thereby." Heb. xii, 11. 

As may be seen by the context, this is addressed to 
Christians ; and the subject upon which Paul is treating 
is, God's chastisements inflicted upon his children in this 
world for their good, and to such they yield the peace- 
able fruits of righteousness. Xo one ever thought that 
endless punishment was taught in this text, yet the au- 



86 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



thor of the " Guide " very gravely remarks, (p. 128,) " If 
this chastisement were strictly endless, how could it af- 
terward yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness ? Is 
there any afterward to eternity ? " Thus a man of straw 
is made and torn in pieces, all for the good of Univer- 
salism ! 

XXXIII. "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the hea- 
then for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the 
earth for thy possession." Psa. ii, 8. Also the following 
texts are examined in this Section : John iii, 35 ; vi, 37 ; 
xvii, 2. 

" God hath given all things to Christ as the moral 
Ruler of the world. 6 Ask of me, and I shall give thee 
the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost 
parts of the earth for thy possession.' Psa. ii, 8. 4 The 
Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into 
his hand.' John iii, 35. 6 All things,' here, means all 
intelligent beings. So say the best commentators." 
— Guide, p. 25. As this argument is made to prove 
Universalism, we must understand Psa. ii, 8, as teaching 
the unconditional salvation of all Adam's race in the 
future state. To this we object, and appeal to the con- 
text. The King of Zion, (verses 6, 7,) to whom the 
promise is given, is doubtless Christ. But what is he 
promised ? Is it that all shall be holy and happy in 
eternity ? No, this is not it ; but the heathen si i all be 
his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth his 
possession ; and he is to break them with a rod of iron, 
and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Verse 9. 
Then an exhortation is given to kings and judges of the 
earth to " serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with 
trembling," (verses 10, 11,) and that they " kiss the Son, 
lest he be angry, and they perish from the way when 
his wrath is kindled but a little." Ver. 12. Says Mr. 
Skinner, " None can be saved from all moral evil here." 



Sec. 33.] Universalism not of the Bible. 



87 



— XT. Ill and Def. 9 p. 261. It is beyond death, then, 
that all are to be saved. But are the heathen to be given 
to Christ beyond death ? are the uttermost parts of the 
earth to be given to Christ beyond the grave ? and is 
Christ to break the heathen in pieces with a rod of iron, 
etc., in eternity ? How will such views comport with 
the idea that there is no condition for man beyond the 
grave but that in which he is as the angels of God in 
heaven ? 

No more need be said to show the perversion of the 
text. Its evident teaching is, the extension of Christ's 
kingdom in the earth among the heathen nations. Let 
us now attend to the other text connected with this to 
make out the argument. "The Father loveth the Son, 
and hath given all things into his hand." Mr. French, 
who attempted to correct his brethren somewhat in a 
sermon before the Maine Convention of Uiriversalists, 
says, " This is a favorite text with some to prove our 
doctrine. But does it have the least, the faintest refer- 
ence to it ? Do not c all things' here denote the power 
which is given to Christ, or every thing necessary for the 
accomplishment of his work? Does not the context 
require this explanation ? And yet a certain book 
( u Guide," p. 25) has it that c all things,' here, means in- 
telligent beings. ' So say the best commentators.' These 
best commentators are beyond our knowledge ; yet 
enough are at hand to bear a contrary testimony." — 
Banner, voh ix, p. 5. Thus cliscourseth Mr. French 
concerning his brother Whittemore. He then names the 
commentators who are opposed to Mr. W.'s assertion, 
as follows : " Scott, Clarke, Campbell, Bloomfield, Liver- 
more, and Tholuck." To these may be added at least 
nine more : Henry, Benson, Wesley, Barnes, Rosenmul- 
ler, Kuinoel, Olshausen, De Wette, and Jacobus, making 
in all fifteen, the most of whom rank among the best 
commentators, and are a'l opposed to Mr. W.'s view ; 



ss 



Uniyebsalism xot of the Bible. [Part I, 



yet Mr. W. says, s; So say the best commentators ! " 
We .^ee that this argument is built upon perverted text-. 
Another argument is produced from the foregoing, as 
follows: " God gave all beings to Christ that he might 
save them. 'Thou hast given him power over all flesh, 
that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast 
given him.' John xvii, 2. This plainly evinces that it 
was God's design, in giving Christ dominion over all 
flesh, that they should all enjoy eternal life." The 
phrase eternal life is, by this same author, confined to 
the spiritual life of the believer in this world. This be- 
ing the case, what has Mr. W. proved by the argument ? 
He has proved that as many as are given to Christ, in 
the sense of the text, have spiritual life in this world. 
Yet this is presented as proof of the salvation of our 
race in the future state ! Which shall we credit ; Mr. 
W. on page 140 of his " Guide," or Mr. W. on page 25 
of the same book ? The assumption is, that all mankind 
are given to Christ, and that eternal life is bestowed on 
all thus given. We are then told that the phrase eter- 
nal life " is not used by the sacred writers to signify 
endless blessedness beyond the grave, but that state of 
spiritual life and peace which was the immediate effect 
of faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ." — Guide, p. 140. 
The inevitable conclusion is, as above stated, that all 
men have spiritual life and peace in this world. Hence 
the j oiliest Universal is t, the ripest infidel, the most de- 
based drunkard, the most polluted libertine, and the most 
humble and pious Christian, may all strike hands in joy- 
ful possession of that spiritual life and peace which faith 
in the Gospel of Christ imparts ! To such results do 
the crooked works of these expounders lead. But ad- 
mitting that " eternal life " does mean a life cf bliss in 
the future state, does not the text then teach the salva- 
tion of all men ? Xo : for it has been shown most con- 
clusively that all are not given to Christ in the sense in- 



SeC. 33,] Uxi VERSA LIS M NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



89 



volved ; and it can be shown by an abundance of Scrip- 
tures, that eternal life is not bestowed unconditionally 
upon adult sinners. (Sec. XXIX.) We now come to 
another argument, built mainly upon the two we have 
considered. " It is certain that Christ will save all that 
the Father hath given him. 6 All that the Father giveth 
me shall come to me ; and him that cometh to me I will 
in no wise cast out.' John vi, 37. These three proposi- 
tions are irrefragable evidence of the final happiness of 
all men." Xow the whole of this work is built upon 
perverte-1 texts and assumptions. 

1. Christ is to have the heathen for his inheritance, 
etc. Psa. ii, 8. This is perverted to teach that all shall 
be holy and happy in the future state. 

2. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all 
things, etc. John iii, 35. This is perverted to mean all 
inte ligent beings. 

3. We are told that God gave all intelligent beings 
to Christ, ihat he might save them; that is, save them 
in the future world : and then Mr. W. brings for proof 
an expression, the future-state reference of which he 
himself denies! He perverts this text, (John xvii, 2,) 
however, not by referring it to the future, but by press- 
ing it in to teach that all shall enjoy eternal life in the 
future state. 

4. Then comes the text which is designed to top out 
the fabric so skillfully reared upon a rotten foundation. 
"All ihat the Father giveth me shall come to me ; and 
him that cometh to me I will in now r ise cast out." John 
vi, 37. a It is certain that Christ will save all that the 
Father hath given him." So says Mr. Whittemore. 
We have already seen the baseless character of his rea- 
sonings, built as they are upon perverted texts ; and 
this is sufficient to show that nothing is proved forUni- 
versalism. But w^e have one more witness to introduce 
to show the falsity of this whole argument. We ask, 



90 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



then, Has the Father given all men to Christ, to be 
saved in the sense of the text last quoted ? Let the 
faithful and true witness answer, " I pray not for the* 
world, but for them which thou hast given me." 
" They are not of the world, even as I am not of the 
world." John xvii, 9, 16. Does the Saviour say that 
all men are given to him, and that he will save all men 
unconditionally in the future ? Nothing like it ; but 
those who are given to him are distinguished from 
others who are called " of the world" and are not given 
to him. It is worthy of remark, too, that even those 
who are his are not so given to him as to secure their 
unconditional salvation ; for it appears that Judas was 
among those given, and yet he was lost. Verse 12. 
See also Psa. xli, 9, and John xiii, 18; also Matt, 
xxvi, 24. That such as are given to Christ, or the 
elect, may be lost, is evident from the apostle, where he 
says, (2 Tim. ii, 10,) " I endure all things for the elect's 
sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is 
in Christ Jesus, with eternal glo^. All will see that 
the sufferings of Paul for these elect persons was wholly 
unnecessary if they were unconditionally safe and sure 
of heaven. In view of these facts, what becomes of Mr. 
Whittemore's boasted " irrefragable evidence of the 
final happiness of all men ? " 

XXXIV. " For we which have believed do enter into 
rest." Heb. iv, 3. 

" Paul says, c We which have believed do enter into 
rest which could never be true if they believed in the 
doctrine of endless misery." — Guide, p. 51. To meet 
this foolish argument, it is only necessary to state that 
Paul says, " We which have believed do enter into 
rest;" which could never be true if they believed the 
text to have its fulfillment in Jerusalem's destruction, 
where such awful calamities were to come upon their 



Sec. 35.] U>av eksalism not of the Bible. 



91 



Jewish brethren. Can a system of truth from heaven 
require such an argument to sustain it? 

XXXV. " And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is 
Abel thy brother?" etc. Gen iv, 9-15; also chapter 
vii, 23, and xix, 24, 25. 

All we have to do with this passage is to expose the 
sophistry employed upon it, as Christians never supposed 
that even heaven or hell were taught here. Says one 
writer, " Neither in the threatening^ nor the fears of 
Cain do we find any thing of endless w r oe. He was to 
be a fugitive and vagabond in the earth." — V. III. and 
Def., p. 199. 

The conclusion from this kind of argument is, that 
there is no future punishment. To show the unsound- 
ness of this, it is only necessary for us to ask a few 
questions. Why did not God tell Cain something about 
the resurrection and heavenly bliss? When he com- 
plained that his punishment was greater than he could 
bear, why did not God inform him that he could not sin 
enough to bring upon himself any more punishment 
than should prove a blessing to him ? Why was he not 
told that all punishment is disciplinary, and that " a 
remission of punishment would be a curse instead of a 
mercy ; because a just punishment is as essential to our 
welfare as any thing that love can do?" (IT. 111. and 
Def., p. 250 ;) or, in other words, Why did not God tell 
Cain that he was about to bless him for murdering his 
brother? Again, when he expressed his fears, "Every 
one that findeth me shall slay me," why did not the 
Lord comfort him by assuring him the possession of 
heavenly bliss in such a case? But all the comfort God 
administered to Cain in this trying hour pertained to 
this life. Why was he not informed that all he could 
possibly have lost by dying in the very act of murder- 
ing his brother would have been the blessing of punish- 



/ 

92 Ukivebsalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 

ment for that last sin ? The render will see that ques- 
tions might be proposed and negatives asserted to al- 
most any extent, which would amount to but little in 
argument. If the absence of the record that God told 
Cain about a future hell is proof that there is none, then 
for the same reason there is no resurrection, no world of 
bliss, and punishment is not disciplinary ; for God told 
Cain nothing about these. This being the case, what 
becomes of Universal ism ? In a word, there is no future 
life whatever, and this is the result of such teachings. 

The destruction of the old world, (Gen. vii, 23,) and 
of Gomorrah, (chap, xix, 24, 25,) they labor to turn to 
their account in the same way. It is asked : " If an in- 
finite curse was to come on the antediluvians, why was 
God silent respecting it ? Or if he preached it to the 
people, why have we no record of the fact?" Of 
Gomorrah it is said, c *God said he would not hide from 
Abraham what he was about to do ; but he gave no 
intimation of endless punishment." — U. III. and Def., 
p. 199. To meet this it is only necessary to ask, If 
Noah, a preacher of righteousness for a hundred and 
twenty T years, was a Universalist, and conveyed the 
glad tidings to the wicked antediluvians that they all 
would go immediately to bliss when the flood should 
come, "why have we no record of the fact?" Gocl 
would not hide from Abraham what he was about to 
do. Gen. xviii, 17. Now if Abraham understood the 
promise made to him to signify the salvation of all men 
in eternity, if he taught the filthy Sodomites that naught 
but bliss awaited themTin the future world, or if he 
taught them that, wicked as they were, and should die 
in that condition, in the resurrection state they should, 
by instruction and punishment, be disciplined up into 
holiness, or if he taught them anything relative to a fu- 
ture life, why are the Scriptures silent about it ? Why 
have we no record of the fact ? It will be seen that the 



SeC. 36.] UNIVERSALIS*! NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



93 



method adopted lo render the case of Cain, the antedi- 
luvians, and the Sodomites, subservient to Universalism, 
can with equal propriety be turned against that system; 
and yet that dogma is dependent for its support upon 
just such work with the Scriptures. Can it be the 
truth of God ? Universalists have much to say concern- 
ing ihe absence of an explicit declaration in favor of fu- 
ture punishment among the patriarchs or the Jews in 
the time of Moses, and consider this a strong argument 
in favor of their doctrine. But was it explicitly de- 
clared to them by God or any of his servants that there 
is no punishment beyond the grave, or that all shall be 
saved in the future world? Let the passage be pro- 
duced, if it can be found. If it cannot be found, let 
Universalists be consistent, and deny a future life 
altogether, 

XXXVI. "And all bare him witness, and wondered 
at the gracious words which proceeded out of his 
mouth." Luke iv, 22. 

Upon this the author of the " Guide " makes an argu- 
ment as follows: "Jesus, when on earth, preached in 
such a manner that the people 1 wondered at the gra- 
cious words which proceeded out of his mouth.' This 
could not have happened had he threatened the people 
with endless punishment." — Guide, p. 43. Universalist 
authors not only admit that Christ foretold Jerusalem's 
destruction, but contend that no small portion of the 
"New Testament is occupied with it. Tn view of their 
professions, one writer has advised them to label it, 
" The Destruction of Jerusalem foretold." Let us 
apply the argument. Jesus, when upon earth, preached 
in such a manner that the people (Jews) wondered at 
the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. 
This could not have happened had he threatened them 
with the horrid cruelties they suffered when the lio- 



94 



LxiVEESALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



mans came against them, together with the destruction 
of their city and temple, which they loved so well! 
Take the threatened destruction of Jerusalem out of the 
Bible, and one of the main pillars of "Tniversalism i^ 
gone. All mast see that the latter argument is as 
sound as the former, and that neither amount to any 
thing. Was all Christ's language accounted " gracious 
words" by his hearers? He addressed some thus: 
u Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye es- 
cape the damnation of hell ? " See the whole oOIatt., 
chap, xxiii. 

XXXVII. " God is lover 1 John iv, 16. 

By the manner this saying has been treated by tJni- 
versalists, we should conclude that love was not an at- 
tribute of God, but constituted the divine substance or 
essence, or in other words, that love is God. But if we 
are to adopt this view because it is asserted that God 
is love, then we may with equal propriety affirm that 
light is God, and that spirit is God; for it is written, 
" God is a spirit," 4i God is light." By this method we 
might soon manufacture as many gods as the heathen 
have, with natures as opposite to each other. We are 
not to conclude because God is love that therefore he 
is nothing else. The love of God is always displayed 
in harmony with his other perfections. We admit, as 
is contended, that God's love always did exist, now 
exists, and always will exist : but it by no means fol- 
lows that all will be saved. For God to be love is one 
thing, and for men to love God is quite another. God's 
love exists independently of his creatures, but man's 
happiness depends upon his moral state. The un- 
changeableness of God's love has been urged as a rea- 
son why all are to be saved. But this very argument 
is fatal to the Universalis! conclusion drawn from the 
love of God; for according to this, God's love will be 



Sec. 37.] UNIVERSALIS^ 2s OT OE THE BlBLE 



95 



the same in all future ages that it is now, and was when 
sin and misery entered the world ; and if his love did 
not prevent sin, and does not now save all men uncon- 
ditionally, what evidence have we, merely from the fact 
that God is love, that it shall be done hereafter? Just 
none at all It will amount to nothing in argument to 
say that the present untold misery of our race is only 
the result of a system of means adopted by love to 
secure to man a great good in the end ; for such means 
are cruel and unnecessary if all men are to be saved un- 
conditionally as the effect of love ; for God's love can call 
to its aid almighty power and infinite wisdom to destroy 
sin and misery now, just as effectually as it can ages 
hence. Men may be under the necessity of adopting a 
severe and painful course to secure good to others — as 
the chastisement of a child, or the amputation of a 
limb to save life ; but what man who loved his child or 
friend would do this if he could secure the same good 
without it ? Xow if it be a mere question of God's love, 
power, or any or all his attributes, irrespective of man's 
agency, he certainly can be under no such necessity as 
to introduce or permit sin and suffering for six thousand 
years in our world, for he can destroy these at once and 
spread peace and happiness throughout the universe. 
But sin and misery continue, which shows us the folly 
of reasoning from the love of God to prove the salva- 
tion of all men ; for if present love does not save from 
present suffering, what presumption it is to suppose that 
future love will save from future suffering. The fact 
that God's love is unchangeable, lies with mighty 
weight against Universalism. If it could be proved that 
the love of God will change at a future time, so as to 
operate differently in his moral system from what it 
ever has before, then perhaps an argument might be 
raised from it to prove the salvation of all meu as the 
result of such a change. But as God's love never 



96 



Universalis^ not of the Bible. [Part I, 



changes, and ;as the wide-spread sufferings of our earth 
for ihi'us-inds of years are not incompatible with it, so, 
for i light that can be shown, it may not be incompati- 
ble with it for impenitent men to suffer endlessly. For 
God to possess the attribute of love is one thing, but for 
him to so love all men as to save them unconditionally in 
the future world, is quite another thing, especially since 
he has said of certain characters, " I will loye them no 
more." Hosea ix, 15. On love as a passion in God, see 
fcec. CXIX. On love consistent with eternal punish- 
ment, see Sec. CXXXVII. On the attributes of God, 
see Sections Oil and CXI1I. 

XXXVIII. " In the beginning God created the heaven 
and the earth." Gen. i, 1. 

Speaking of the Bible, Mr. Rogers says "it informs 
me that c in the beginning' God created the heaven and 
the earth,' but no mention is m&de of his ha ving created 
a hell ! " — Pro and Con., p. 280. This argument is put 
forth by one w r ho has been counted a Rabbi in the 
order. Such questions as w r here is hell ? when was it 
created ? are quite common with some ; and not obtain- 
ing a satisfactory answer, it is quite evident to such 
that there is no future and endless punishment. It 
would be a severe reflection upon the understanding 
of their leaders to say that they know no better than to 
present such an argument for the reception of the igno- 
rant. The truth is, we have no more history touching 
the creation of heaven as a place of bliss than we have of 
hell as a place of torment. The heaven named in the his- 
tory is the firmament, as all may see by reading it. The 
argument stands thus: If there were any hell where 
men will suffer in the future world, there would be an 
account of its creation in the Bible. There is no such 
account in the Bible ; therefore there is no hell for men 
to suffer in the future world. Let us apply this iu 



Sec. 39.] Univeesausm not of the Bible. 



97 



another direction. If there were any heaven where 
men will be happy in the future world, there would "be 
an account of its creation in the Bible. There is no 
such account ; therefore there is no heaven for men to 
enjoy in the future world. There is, then, no endless 
suffering to be feared, and no endless bliss to be hoped 
for! To such results are we led in this warfare against 
the truth of God. If this is so, what becomes of Uni- 
versalisni ? 

XXXIX. " Every valley shall be exalted, and every 
mountain and hill shall be made low : and the crooked 
shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: 
And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all 
flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord 
hath spoken it." Isa. xl, 4, 5. 

As all men are not saved in this world, in the Uni- 
versalist sense, the assumption upon this passage is, 
that all the progeny of Adam shall be made holy and 
happy in the future state. Any believer in a future 
retribution can admit that God's glory will be revealed 
in the future judgment, and that all men will see it 
together ; and that, too, without admitting that all will 
be saved. But we deny the future-state reference of 
the passage. It is a highly poetical description of the 
achievements of the Gospel in this world, and the level- 
ing process preparatory to it had its fulfillment in the 
labors of John the Baptist. See Luke iii,3,5. But it is 
said the expression Ct all flesh " must mean the whole 
race of man. Xot so, for Joel prophesied that God 
would pour out his ' ; Spirit upon all flesh" (Joel ii, 2S,) 
and this, as the inspired Peter declared, had its fulfill- 
ment on the day of Pentecost. Acts ii. 16, 17. All 
flesh here cannot mean the whole race of man, for mill- 
ions had lived and died before that day. By the 
declaration that all flesh shall see the salvation of God, 



98 



TJ^IYERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Pail I, 



we may understand that there will be such a display of 
God's glory in the world through the Gospel that all 
men then living shall see it, or, it may be, enjoy it. 

XL. " The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all 
sin." 1 John i, 7. 

" There is no sin that the blood of Christ will not 
wash away. Though our sins be as scarlet, they shall 
be white as snow ; and though they be red like crimson, 
they shall be as wool. Jesus can save the chief of sin- 
ners. 1 Tim. i, 15. He has the will no less than the 
power ; therefore, all men will be saved by his grace." 
— Guide, p. 52. Here the entire argument of 3fr. Whit- 
temore is given to prove Universalism from this text, 
and we have seldom seen more perversion in so small a 
compass. As this argument is made to prove Univer- 
salism, it is of course assumed that the blood of Christ 
will cleanse unconditionally all the race of man from all 
sin. But the connection in which the text is found 
clearly refutes this. The whole verse reads thus : u But 
if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fel- 
lowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ 
his Son cleanseth us from all sin." Cleanseth us. Who ? 
All men ? Xo ; but such as " walk in the light," etc. 
Reference is made to Isa. i, 18. By turning to it, it will 
be seen that God is addressing the rebellious Jews, and 
declaring to them, not his ability to save them independ- 
ent of their moral agency, but that in case they gave up 
their rebellion and turned to him he would cleanse them. 
The whole of this silly argument is based upon the un- 
warranted assumption that Christ is willing and able to 
save all men irrespective of their agency, and having 
this ability and will, all men will be saved. But we are 
authorized from the Bible to say that there are some 
things that God himself cannot do. He cannot lie. He 
cannot deny himself ; and as a moral governor he can- 



SeC. 41.] UxiVEKSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



69 



not save sinners without penitence. The almighty Sav- 
iour could not do many mighty works in one place " be- 
cause of their unbelief," (Matt, xiii, 58,) and although 
he is able to save to the uttermost, yet he only will save 
such as come unto him. Heb. vii, 25. We deny the 
ability of Christ to save those who reject him. " Ye 
will not come unto me that ye might have life," said he 
to those who spurned his invitations. 

XLT. When the Son of man shall come in his glory," 
etc. Matt, xxv, 31-46. 

Universalists now seem to be quite astonished because 
we cannot see Jerusalem's destruction in this pa-sage. 
But why should they be surprised at our dullness, since 
Mr. Ballon, with all his sagacity, preached for years be- 
fore he thought of denying its future-state reference ; 
and even when he did deny it, he never once thought 
of consigning the passage over to Jerusalem, but saw 
most clearly that it had its fulfillment on the day of Pen- 
tecost. In his " Treatise on the Atonement," p. 170, 
printed in 1828, ten years after he made the discovery 
that after death there is no judgment, the following ex- 
position occurs : " The time of Christ's coming in his 
glory was the day of Pentecost. His holy angels with 
whom he came were his chosen apostles. His glory is 
the gospel of eternal life. Sheep and goats signify be- 
lievers and unbelievers. Bight hand and left menus 
gospel and law. The believer stands in the gospel of 
life. The unbeliever is condemned already, and the 
wrath of God, in the letter of the law, abideth upon 
him." This was given at the time with much positive- 
ness, and doubtless many a sin-loving disciple was made 
joyful by such a handy method of getting rid of a text 
so troublesome to wicked men. It was received as the 
pure bread of life, the truth, in opposition to the mon- 
strosities of the purblind Partialists. Mr. Murray was 



100 UxiVERS 1LISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



quite sure that this passage referred to the future judg- 
ment, and that the sheep were all mankind and the goats 
the fallen angels, or devils, (Universalist Comp., 1856, 
p. 20,) involving the absurd idea that the devils were 
condemned for not attending to their duty (verses 42— 
44) in visiting Christ's followers in sickness and other 
calamities ! It is some over fifty years since Universal- 
ists began to deny that this Scripture referred to the fu- 
ture world, and while some adopted the same quibbling 
that their modern brethren do, to show that the word ever- 
lasting does not mean endless, there were others among 
them who admitted that endless punishment is deserved 
and threatened in the Bible, but that all will be saved 
from it by the atonement, or that it will be remitted 
to all upon the same principle that the Xinevites 
were saved from their threatened punishment. Dr. 
Huntington (Sec. CXXV) was a man of learning, and 
wrote a book to prove Universalisin. Mr. Whittemore 
says of him that he " found fault with Universalists in 
general for trifling with the original word translated for- 
ever ; and in reference to the question, c Does the Bible 
plainly say that sinners of mankind shall be damned to 
interminable punishment ? ' he answered, e It certainly 
does, as plainly as language can express, or any man, 
or even God himself, can speak.' c The endless duration 
of punishment,' said he, ' appears obviously just, no more 
than we deserve, and not in the least cruel for God to 
inflict. 5 " Mr. W. also says, " Huntington's system dif- 
fered very little, if any, from Relly's." — Mod. Hist., pp. 
384, 385. 

But the children have outgrown their fathers, and now 
it is denied that endless punishment was ever deserved 
or threatened,, and it is boldly asserted by their leading 
authors, whose works are now (1873) circulated and 
highly commended, that Christ never came into this 
world to save us in the next. Their once positive truth 



See. 41.] Universalis^ kot of the Bible. 101 

has become untruth, and they now as positively assert 
that the passage we are about to consider had its fulfill- 
ment in Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans. To 
assist us in coming at the truth in this examination, let 
us inquire into the current theology of the Jews in our 
Saviour's time. Did they believe in a general future 
judgment, and that a sentence consequent upon it of 
everlasting bliss or punishment should be passed by the 
Judge upon men according to their works ? Josephus, 
the Jewish historian of those times, treating upon Jew- 
ish belief, writes thus : " For all men, the just as well 
as the unjust, shall be brought before God the Word ; 
for to him hath the Father committed all judgment ; 
and he, in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall 
come as judge, whom we call Christ." " This person, 
exercising the righteous judgment of the Father toward 
all men, hath prepared a just sentence for every one, ac- 
cording to his works ; at whose judgment-seat, when all 
men, and angels, and demons shall stand, they will send 
forth one voice, and say, Just is the judgment : the re- 
joinder to which will bring a just sentence upon both 
parties, by giving justly to those that have done well an 
everlasting fruition ; but allotting to the lovers of wicked 
works eternal punishment." — Dis. to the Greeks concern- 
ing Hades. 

That the Saviour (Matt, xxv, 31-46) had this scene in 
view cannot be doubted for a moment by those who 
will compare the passage with the theology of the Jews. 
The question now is, Did the Saviour take this tremen- 
dous scene, which the Jews firmly believe would take 
place in a future state, and use it as a figure to illustrate 
a temporal calamity about to come upon Jerusalem, and 
that, too, without the least intimation that he so used 
it ? Are Universalist ministers of the present day in 
the habit of using the doctrine of future and eternal 
retributions to illustrate temporal evils, and that, too. 



102 



Uniyeesalism xot op the Bible. [Part I, 



without expressing the least dissent from it, or ever once 
informing their hearers that the figure they employ is a 
false notion and not a fact ? All know that the great bur- 
den of their preaching in our day is to berate and disprove 
a future judgment and endless punishment ; but for this 
work they have not a single precedent in all the labors 
of Christ and his apostles, as recorded in the Bible. (Sec. 
CXXXI.) Hosv shall we reconcile the discrepancy be- 
tween those claimed as ancient Universalists and modern 
receivers of the doctrine ? On no principle other than 
that Universalism is false. 

While we admit that Christ speaks of the destruction 
of Jerusalem in Matt, xxiv, we do not admit that this 
is the only subject upon which he treats. The following 
thoughts may assist the reader in scattering the mist 
thrown upon the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth chap- 
ters by Universalists. Christ said of the temple, chap, 
xxv, 2, " There shall not be left here one stone upon 
another that shall not be thrown down." This led his 
disciples to inquire, verse 3, "When shall these things 
be ? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and the 
end of the world ? M In this we have a threefold ques- 
tion, relating to the destruction of Jerusalem, the coming 
of Christ, and the end of the world. Xow in a reply 
from the Saviour we may expect an answer to each ques- 
tion, and in doing this he gives in verses 4-14 the 
general signs which have been taking place from the 
time of the Saviour to the present, the last of which is 
given as follows : " And this Gospel shall be preached 
in all the world for a witness unto all nations ; and then 
shall the end come." Xow the end here cannot mean 
the end of the Jewish age or dispensation, for that closed 
with the death of Christ. There is no authority from 
the Scriptures for extending the Jewish dispensation to 
the destruction of Jerusalem, as Universalists are wont 
to do, for the apostle clearly shows us, Heb. ix, 16, 17, 



Sec. 41.] Universalism xot of the Bible. 



103 



that the New Testament or Gospel dispensation was in- 
troduced by the death of the Saviour. Xow if the end 
here means the end of the Jewish age, then the Gospel 
was preached in all the world as a witness to all nations 
before the death of Christ ! The truth is, the end here 
named means the end of the Christian dispensation, or 
the end of time, and this last general sign is being ful- 
filled now by the spread of the Gospel among the 
nations. The reader can turn to the Scriptures referred 
to, as we omit to copy the most of them on account of 
their length. We come now to his answer to their ques- 
tions, t% When shall these things be ? " This may be 
called the second division of Matt, xxiv, beginning with 
verse 15, and closing with verse 22. Here the Saviour 
imparts instruction concerning Jerusalem's destruction. 
Included here is the passage that has been used to dis- 
prove endless punishment: "For then shall there be 
great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of 
the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Verse 21. 
It has been affirmed, that, as the Saviour asserts the de- 
struction of Jerusalem to be the greatest tribulation, 
endless punishment must be false. Paul, years before 
the Romans came against that city, said of the Jews^ 
1 Thess. ii, 16 : " Wrath is come upon them to the utter- 
most." But are we to infer from this that our Saviour's 
prediction never had its fulfillment on the Jews ? Such 
an idea would be considered the most paltry quibbling ; 
but it is no more so than to attempt an argument from 
our Saviour's words against endless punishment. The 
text is a strong hyperbolic expression to show the dread- 
ful calamity which should befall the Jewish nation in 
this world, irrespective of man's condition in the future, 
and to say that the Jews at that time were to suffer more 
than all, or any, men ever would after that event, well 
becomes the cause it is designed to support ; but truth 
requires no such work. To confine, if possible, all our 



104 



TJniversalism not of the Bible. [Part 1, 



Lord's predictions in this (xxiv) chapter to Jerusalem's 
overthrow, his words in verse 34 are often quoted to 
show that all the things named were to take place dur- 
ing the natural lives of the then existing inhabitants, 
thus defining the term "generation" to mean the time 
from the birth of a man until he becomes a parent, or 
about thirty years. But in the Bible it is sometimes 
used to designate a race of men, or a kind, sort, or 
species. When the Saviour says, "This generation shall 
not pass away till all these things be fulfilled," he means, 
as we conceive, that the Jewish race should not become 
extinct until that which he had predicted should be ful- 
filled. In speaking upon the same subject, Luke xxi, 
24, he says, "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the 
Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." 
This implies that Jerusalem should cease to be trodden 
down, and that, too, before that generation should pass 
away. Jerusalem is still trodden down by the Gentiles; 
but the Jewish race, though scattered and peeled in all 
parts of the world, as by miracle, still retain their na- 
tional prejudices iind forms of worship. Understanding, 
then, by this generation, the Jews as a distinct race, the 
prediction appears to be literally true, and in keeping 
with other prophecies relating to the same event. Paul 
says, (Rom. xi, 25,) "For I would not, brethren, that ye 
should be ignorant of this mystery, that blindness in part 
is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles 
be come in." Thus will the Jews be preserved as a dis- 
tinct people or generation. That the term in question is 
sometimes used in the Bible in the sense of species, breed, 
kind, and race, may be seen, Psa. xxiv, 6; xxii, 30; 
Prov. xxx, 12 ; 1 Pet. ii, 9. But admitting that chap, 
ter xxiv relates exclusively to the overthrow of the 
Jews, and by the phrase, this generation, we are to un- 
derstand the people then living, and them only, it does 
not follow that Matt, xxv, 31-46, relates to the same 



Sec. 41.] Univeesalism not of the Bible. 



105 



event. This forms at least a part of the answer to the 
question, " What shall be the sign of thy coining and 
the end of the world ? " As Universalists are now just 
as positive that this had its fulfillment when Titus went 
against Jerusalem, as Mr. Ballou and others were once 
that it referred to the day of Pentecost, we will here 
notice some of the absurdities involved in such a re- 
ference. 

1. " When the Son of man shall come in his glory." 
Verse 31. This, we are told, took place when Jerusalem 
was destroyed ; that Christ came then, not in person, 
but in power, to overthrow the Jews. (See " Xotes on 
Par.,-' by T. Whittemore, p. 347.) This power says to 
them on his right hand, " Come, ye blessed," etc. For 
" I (the power) was a-hungered, and ye gave me no 
meat," etc. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of 
the least of these my brethren," that is, brethren to the 
power ! All must see the absurdity of this. 

2. " And all the holy angels with him." Verse 31. The 
holy angels, we are informed, were the Roman armies. 
"Guide," p. 104. The Saviour calls the Roman armies 
"the abomination of desolation." Chap, xxiv, 15. But 
Universalism requires that the polluted, idolatrous Ro- 
mans be considered holy angels ! ! This is certainly 
worse than Mr. Ballou's invention, now obsolete, for 
there is more plausibility in asserting that the apostles 
were the holy angels than that heathen warriors were. 

3. " Before him shall be gathered all nations." Ver. 
32. Says Mr. W., (" Notes on Par.," p. 334,) " Such ex- 
pressions as in all the world, and among all nations, are 
not to be understood strictly." But this same writer, and 
others like him, in considering the Abrahamic promise, 
assert that " all nations " means the whole of Adam's 
posterity ! Since it is asserted that all nations, in the 
sense of the text, were gathered at Jerusalem, let us in- 
quire who composed this gathering? To answer this 



106 



Universalis^ not of the Bible. [Part I, 



we have only to learn who were separated, rewarded, 
and punished at that time. Of this separation we ar~ 
told that it was " between the faithful disciples and the 
persecutors of the Church." — Notes on Par., p. 346. 
Speaking of the words in verse 46, this author asserts 
that they are not to be understood to teach endless 
punishment, assigning as a reason "the parable in which 
they occur was spoken of Jews," (p. 352,) and believers 
were those rewarded with eternal life. Ver. 46, p. 353. 
Jews and Christians, then, constitute the "all nations." 
Observe, those who were separated were gathered before 
the Son of man. Ver. 32. But was there any such 
gathering at Jerusalem's destruction ? But few Chris- 
tians, comparatively, were at Jerusalem when Titus 
marched against it, for they were scattered all over the 
Roman empire at great distances from that point. To 
some of the many places where Christian Churches were 
located, the distances from Jerusalem were about as fol- 
lows: To Rome, 1,55.0 miles ; Corinth, 900; Galatia, 600; 
Ephesus, 650 ; Philippi, 950; Colosse, 550; Thessalonica, 
1,000. Now is there any thing in history, have Univer- 
salists been able to produce any thing, that bears the 
faintest resemblance to Christians being gathered, re- 
warded, and punished at that time? Nothing of the 
kind can be found. Such a thought contradicts the 
Saviour, who, instead of predicting that Christians would 
be gathered then, represents it as a time of flight from 
Judea. Matt, xxiv, 16-20. And Universalists themselves, 
to serve another purpose, quote Eusebius to show that 
Christians fled from Jerusalem at the signs of approach- 
ing danger, and thus escaped "to Pella and other 
places beyond the river Jordan." — Notes on Par., p. 
336. A strange gathering at Jerusalem that ! 

4. "Then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. 5 ' 
Verse 31. How the power sat upon the throne of his 
glory in Jerusalem's overthrow" w r e are not informed ; 



Sec. 41.] Universalis:*! not of the Bible. 



107 



but it is evident that Christ was not enthroned there, 
either spiritually or literally. 

5. " And he shall separate them one from another, as 
a shepherd," etc. Verse 32. Says Mr. Rogers, who has 
been counted a tall man in the order, " Every gramma- 
rian knows that nations is the antecedent to the pronoun 
them in this place ; nations, then, are what are to be 
judged and separated." " Are our opponents willing to 
abide a literal application of this text to a judgment in 
eternity? If so, we shall have the different nations of 
mankind severed from each other ; and while some, en 
masse, are taken to heaven, others mil be driven to 
hell." — p r0 an rJ Con,, p. 158. ISTow what of force there 
is here lies with all its weight against a judgment at 
Jerusalem's destruction. Were nations judged there, 
and severed, and sent off en masse? Mr. Page, another 
great man in the order, presents an entire different view. 
He says, " 4 Shall separate them namely, the people of 
those nations. The pronoun in the original does not 
refer immediately to the word nations, it being of a dif- 
ferent gender." Who shall decide when the doctors dis- 
agree ? 

6. "The devil and his angels." Verse 41. These, we 
are told, " were the leading Jews and their emissaries." — 
Notes on Par., p. 350. But Mr. Page passes it with this 
remark : " An allusion to the contemporary Jewish opin- 
ions, as in the parable of the wheat and tares." Com- 
ment is unnecessary. 

7. " These shall go away into everlasting punishment." 
Verse 46. We are informed that everlasting in this 
passage means limited duration, and that the Jews suf- 
fered everlasting punishment in the sense here intended 
in their destruction by the Romans. We are told, too, 
that all punishment is for the good of the punished. 
All punishment being corrective, " a remis-ion of such 
punishment would be a cuive instead of a mercy ; but a 



103 



Universamsm not of the Bible. [Part I, 



just punishment is as essential to our welfare as any 
thing that love can do.*' Again, " All the judgments of 
which the Scriptures speak are to destroy sin and reform 
the sinner." — U. Ill and Def^ pp. 248, 250. So it 
seems the Saviour (Luke xix, -41) wept over the Jews in 
view of the punishment they were about to experience, 
by which their sins would be destroyed and they re- 
formed, a punishment which was as essential to their 
welfare as any thing that love could do ! How unkind. 

Dr. A. Clarke ^ays, "But some are of the opinion that 
this punishment shall have an end. This is as likely as 
that the glory of the righteous shall have an end : for the 
same word is used to express the duration of the punish- 
ment as is used to express the duration of the state of 
glory. I have seen the best things that have been writ- 
ten in favor of the final redemption of damned spirits; 
but I never saw an answer to an argument against that 
doctrine, drawn from this verse, but what sound learning 
and criticism should be ashamed to acknowledge." 
— Clarke in loco. So much from Dr. Clarke, who, it is 
believed, had some knowledge of language. 

8. " But the righteous into lite eternal." Verse -46. 
" We consider that the life spoken of Matt, xxv, 46, is 
not confined to the immortal existence into which the 
human race are to be raised alter natural death, but is 
that spiritual life which the believer enjoys in this state." 
So says Mr. Whittemore. "X. on Par.,"' p. 353. Observe, 
it is of the righteous that the Saviour is speaking, and 
all must admit that such have spiritual life. The inter- 
pretation, then, amounts to this : The spiritually alive 
shall be made spiritually alive when Jerusalem shall be 
destroyed by the Romans ! Receive it who can. 

Mr. Whittemore admits that Christ's bodily visit again 
to the earth is taught, 1 Thess. iv, 16. u Guide," p. 36. 
(Sec. XXVI.) That Mr. W. is right for once, is evi- 
dent ; for nothing can be more obvious than that the 



Sec. 41.] Universalis^! xot of the Bible. 



109 



apostle is speaking of the same advent he treats so 
largely upon in 1 Cor. xv. As Paul gives a descrip- 
tion of Christ's coming in 2 Thess, i, 7-10, it cannot vrell 
be doubted but he refers to the same event spoken of in 
the 1 Thess., as the epistles were both written by the 
same apostle, addressed to the same people, and. both 
treat on the advent of Christ. All unite in referring 
1 Cor. xv to the resurrection, and Mr. Whittemore admits 
that 1 Thess iv, 16 teaches that Christ will visit the 
earth bodily at that time. Let us now collate some 
of the prominent features as given by Christ, Matt, xxv, 
31-46, and .by Paul, 1 Cor. xv ; 1 Thess. iv ; 2 Thess. i; 
and see if it is not strikingly clear that they all describe 
the same event. 



Matt. XXV. 



1 Cor. xv. 



1. -The Son of 1. 
man shall come." ing." 



2. "All the 
holv angels with 
him." 



'At his com^ 



3. "Before him 
shall be gathered 
all nations."' 



1 In his glo- 



ry. 



6. "These shall 
go away into ev- 
erlasting punish- 
ment." 

1. " Come, ye 
blessed of my 
Father, inherit," 
etc. " The right- 
eous into life eter- 
nal." 



1 Thess. iv. 

1. "The Lord 
himself shall de- 
scend from heav- 
en." 

2. "With the 
voice of the arch 
angel." 



3. "The dead 
shall be raised." 

4. "The last 
trump ; — for the 
trumpet shall 
sound." 



2 Thess. i. 

1. "The Lord 
himself shall be 
revealed from 
heaven." 

2. "With his 
mighty angels." ' 



dead 
shall 



3. "The 
in Christ 
rise Srst." 

4. "With the 
trump of G-od." 



I "And so 
shall vre ever be 
with the Lord.*' 



5. "T o be 

glorified in his 
saints." 

6. "Punished 
with everlasting 
destruction from 
the presence of 
the Lord." 



110 



Universalis^! not of the Bible. 



[Part I, 



The reader must see that these texts are co-relative, 
all teaching the same coming; of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
The Saviour, in Matt, xxv, refers to the same event Paul 
does in 1 Thess. iv, with this difference only. Christ 
speaks of the righteous and the wicked, while the apostle 
speaks of the righteous only. But the apostle, in his 
second letter, treats of both classes, as is seen by the 
comparison above. We learn from the words of Christ 
and the apostle, 

1. That there will be a personal advent of Christ. 

2. That holy angels shall accompany him. 

3. That the trump of God, the last trump, shall sound. 

4. That the dead shall be raised incorruptible, so that 
whatever be their doom, misery or bliss, their resurrec- 
tion bodies will not be subject to decay, but will endure 
forever. 

5. That all men, the wicked and the righteous, shall 
be brought before Christ the judge. 

6. That the wicked shall be sentenced to everlasting 
punishment, but the righteous rewarded with life eternal. 

Take into account the belief of those addressed by 
our Lord, the points of resemblance between his words 
and those in Paul's epistles, admitted by Universalists 
to refer to Christ's coming at the resurrection, together 
with the glaring absurdity of asserting the passage to 
be fulfilled at Jerusalem's destruction ; — take these into 
the account, we say, and who but those who are de- 
termined to support an opinion at all hazards but will 
admit that our Lord here teaches a future judgment con- 
nected with, or subsequent to, the resurrection. 

XLIL " And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will 
draw all men unto me." John xii, 32. 

The importance attached to this text to prove Univer- 
salism may be seen by the following : " Now were there 
no other argument in favor of universal salvation, this 



Sec. 43.] UXIVEESALISM. XOT OF THE BlBLE. Ill 



would be entirely sufficient to establish the doctrine." — 
U. III. and Def., p. 267. " This certainly assures us 
of the salvation of all men." — Guide, p. 266. Yes, 
reader, upon the strength of this somewhat equivocal 
text alone these men assure us of the salvation of all 
men in eternity, while they can see no possible evidence 
of any future punishment whatever taught in the 
Bible! All are not drawn in the Universalist sense in 
this world, for wickedness and misery abound to an 
alarming extent, and Christ might say of many now, as 
anciently, " Ye will not come unto me, that ye might 
have life." John v, 40. Remark, the Saviour does not 
say, I will make all men holy and happy in the resurrec- 
tion state ; but simply, " I will draw all men unto me." 
Nothing is said in the text concerning the character or 
condition of those who shall be drawn. That all men 
will be drawn to Christ in a future state is admitted, 
yea, contended for by Christians, for they believe the 
apostle when he says, " For we shall all stand before the 
judgment-seat of Christ," Rom. xiv, 10, 11, also 2 Cor. 
v, 10. But should it still be contended that this draw- 
ing indicates the salvation of all men, then we reply, the 
Saviour presents a very different view when speaking of 
the same event, namely, his being " lifted up." Hear 
him. "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder- 
ness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up : that 

WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IX HOI SHOULD XOT PERISH, BUT 

have eterxal life." John hi, 14, 15. As we consider 
the Saviour competent to give the true design of his be- 
ing " lifted up," we conclude the Universalist construc- 
tion to be false. It remains a fact, however, that all, 
whether holy or unholy, will be drawn to Christ in the 
judgment to receive their final sentence. 

XLIII. " For the Son of man shall come in the glory 
of his Father with his angels ; and then he shall reward 



112 



UNIVERSALIS^! XOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I. 



every man according to his works. Verily I say unto 
you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste 
of death till thev see the Son of man coming in his kino*- 
dom." Matt, xvi, 27, 28. 

This passage, and especially the 28th verse, has been 
considered a kind of lever by which to overturn every 
argument brought in favor of the personal advent and 
of future judgment, and to tumble those Scriptures urged 
in support of these doctrines into Jerusalem's destruc- 
tion. Since some commentators have admitted it, and 
Universalists stoutly contend that that event is to be 
considered a coming of Christ, we have been somewhat 
careful in examining the Scriptures to see if that is the 
fact, and have come to the conclusion that the coming 
of the Roman army against that city is never called the 
coming of Christ. Take the 27th verse, now under con- 
sideration, and is there any thing in the overthrow of 
the Jews by the Romans bearing the least resemblance 
to this description ? Whoever saw, or imagined he saw, 
the Son of man or his angels at that time ? Joseph us 
was present, and has transmitted to us a number of 
prodigies which happened ; but he says nothing about 
the coming of Christ. Then what in that event answers 
to the angels called (Matt, xxv, 31) holy angels ? Were 
the fierce, polluted, and idolatrous Roman soldiers these 
holy angels ? Preposterous ! It is false, too, that every 
man was rewarded u according to his works," as the 
text asserts, when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and 
butchered and enslaved the Jews — for but a fraction 
of the human race were there — and those who were in- 
volved in the siege did not receive according to their 
works, for many of the women and infants were the 
greatest sufferers. So far from the truth is it that Christ 
came at that time, that in predicting that event (Matt, 
xxiv, 23) he faithfully warned his disciples against heed- 



SeC. 43.] ITnIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



113 



ing such a doctrine. Hear him. " Then (at the de- 
struction of Jerusalem) if any man shall say nnto you, 
Lo here is Christ, or there, believe it not." What 
folly to talk of Christ's coming to destroy Jerusalem ! 
The truth is, the 27th verse teaches the second personal ad- 
vent of Christ, when he shall judge the world in righteous- 
ness ; and the 28th refers to the model of that personal 
advent witnessed by Peter, James, and John upon the 
mount, recorded in the following verses in the next 
chapter. The end of a chapter does not always end a 
subject ; for it should be borne in mind, that dividing 
the Bible into chapters and verses was not the work of 
the inspired writers, but is comparatively a modern thing, 
for convenience' sake. The last two verses of chapter 
xvi, and the first five of chapter xvii, when connected as 
they should be, read as follows : " For the Son of man 
shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels ; 
and then he shall reward every man according to Lis 
works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing 
here, which shall not taste of death till they see the Son 
of man coming in his kingdom. And after six days, Je- 
sus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and 
bringeth them up into a high mountain apart, and was 
transfigured before them : and his face did shine as the 
sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, be- 
hold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking 
with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, 
Lord, it is good for us to be here : if thou wilt, let us 
make here three tabernacles ; one for thee, and one for 
Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, 
a bright cloud overshadowed them : and behold, a voice 
out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in 
whom I am well pleased : hear ye him." 

Just examine in connection with this what Peter, who 
was an eye-witness of this scene, says in the following : 
"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, 

8 



114 UlSlVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Parti, 



when we made known nnto you the power and coming 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his 
majesty. For he received from God the Father honor 
and glory, when there came such a voice to him from 
the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I 
am well pleased. And this voice which came from 
heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy 
mount." (Sec. XLIV.) 

Thus we have the prediction, its accomplishment, and 
remarks by one who witnessed the whole, and he calls 
the transfiguration, " The power and coming of our Lord 
Jesus Christ." This, then, and not the destruction of 
Jerusalem, is what the Saviour is speaking of when he 
says, "There be some standing here which shall n<>t 
taste death till they see the Son of man coming in his 
kingdom." Peter, James, and John were present at that 
time, and after six days they were upon the mount and 
witnessed this presentation of Christ's final coming. 
There are five different comings of Christ named in the 
New Testament : 

1. His personal advent in the flesh. John i, 11-14. 

2. His spiritual coming to comfort and sustain his fol- 
lowers. John xiv, 18-23. 

3. His transfiguration upon the mount, which, as we 
have seim, was a model of his second personal advent. 

4. His providential coming, named Rev. ii, 5, to pun- 
ish apostate Churches. 

5. His final and personal advent to raise the dead and 
judge the world. This is usually called his second ad- 
vent, because it is his second personal coming. Mr. 
Whittemore, in his " Guide," p. 36, bears testimony to 
this advent. (Sec. XXVI.) 

We refer the reader to a few out of the many passages 
where this is taught : 1 Thess. iv, 16 ; 2 Thess. i, 7-10 ; 
1 Cor. xv, 23 ; Phil, iii, 20, 21 ; Matt, xxv, 31-46 ; Acts 
xvii, 31 ; 2 Cor. v, 10; Rom. ii, 16. Collate John xiv, 



SeC. 44.] UxiVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



115 



3, with Acts i, 11. In this last-named text it is declared 
that, " This same Jesus, which is taken up from you 
into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have 
seen him go into heaven." With this text before him, 
to say nothing of many others, what man with honest 
purpose can deny that a second personal advent of 
Christ is taught in the Bible ? 

XL1Y. " For verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have 
gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be 
come." Matt, x, 23. 

" That this passage has no reference to the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, is evident from the following consid- 
erations : 

" 1. This language was addressed to the apostles, ac- 
cording to Dr. Carpenter's 6 Gospel Harmony,' not more 
than six months before the crucifixion. 

" 2. The apostles finished their circuit among the 
cities of Israel, and returned to their Lord before the 
crucifixion. 

" 3. Before the ascension of Christ they received an en- 
larged commission, and went out to preach the Gospel to 
all nations; to every creature. As a matter of fact, then, 
in less than one year from the time when their Lord 
said, " Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel 
till the Son of man be come," they had gone over the 
cities of Israel, and received a new commission — author- 
ity to preach to the Gentiles. The coming, then, here 
referred to, either took place within one year, or Christ 
must have uttered a false prediction. Take which horn 
of the dilemma you please. 

" 4. Besides, Jerusalem was not destroyed till at least 
thirty-seven years after the apostles received their com- 
mission to preach in the cities of Israel. But long before 
this period had elapsed, the apostles had gone over the 
field which their first commission contemplated, returned 



116 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



and received authority to preach to the Gentiles ; they 
had spread the Gospel all over the eastern world, and, 
with the exception of John, had all gone to the rewards 
of the faithful." — Russell. 

The coming of Christ, named 2 Peter i, 16-18, took 
place within a few weeks after the apostles were sent out, 
and before they had gone over the cities of Israel, and to 
that event he doubtless refers in the text. See Sec. XLIII. 

XL V. " I keep under my body, and bring it into sub- 
jection : lest that by any means, when I have preached 
toothers, I myself should be a castaway." 1 Cor. ix, 27. 

Speaking of the competitors in the Grecian games, 
the apostle says : " Now they do it to obtain a corrupti- 
ble crown; but we an incorruptible." That Paul has 
his eye on the immortal prize, and expresses a sense of 
danger, must be obvious to all candid minds. In the 
Olympic games, to which reference is made, the prize 
was at the end of the race, and in order to secure it, the 
race must be performed according to law, or the judge 
did not award the crown. So in the Christian race, the 
incorruptible crown of glory is at the end, and the race 
must be according to law ; hence, says the apostle, 
(verse 24,) "So run, that ye may obtain." But if the 
Universalist theory be correct, all are sure of the im- 
mortal prize whether they run or not, and the man who 
blasphemes God with his latest breath is as surely 
crowned as the apostle. Examine well the text and 
context, and it will be seen that the apostle's course is 
strikingly at variance with Universalist teachings. 

XL VI. " Because sentence against an evil work is not 
executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men 
is fully set in them to do evil." Eccles. viii, 11. 

Universalism declares that sentence against an evil 
work is executed speedily, that it is not delayed ; while 



See. 46.] Universalis^ not of the Bible. 117 

the Bible asserts that it " is not speedily executed." 
Which shall we believe, Universalism or the Bible ? 
Notwithstanding this text stands directly opposed to a 
prominent feature of their theory, yet these men of 
many inventions attempt to turn it against evangelical 
truth, because of the abuse of the long-suffering named 
in the passage, and asserts that our views are conducive 
to sin because we teach that its punishment is far off in 
the future. They are wont to discourse on this wise : 
" The sentiment which defers all punishment to another 
world is defective, because it provides a way of escape. 
It says : 4 Go on in sin; live in it till the age of seventy, 
eighty, or ninety ; curse and blaspheme God ; oppress 
and wrong the widow ; ruin unprotected innocence; stain 
your hands in human blood ; but repent before you die, 
and you escape all punishment ; you go immediately to 
glory. Not only so — it makes man a gainer by sin ; for 
the same sentiment says, the wicked are happier in this 
world than the good.' Again : Suppose our laws were 
established on this principle, and that transgressors were 
not called to an account till they arrive at the age of 
fifty or sixty ; that all this time they are permitted to 
go on committing all manner of crimes ; should we not 
call this, ruinous policy ?" — U. 111. and Def., p. 21V. 

Upon this we venture to say, that more misrepresen- 
tation could not be crowded into so small a space. We 
are kindly informed what other sentiments say ; now let 
us hear what Universalism, as set forth by Mr. Skinner 
himself, says. It says, " Go on in sin ; live in it till the 
age of seventy, eighty, or ninety ; curse and blaspheme 
God; oppress and wrong the widow; ruin unprotected 
innocence ; stain your hands in human blood ; never re- 
pent before you die ; blaspheme God with your latest 
breath ; fall either by your own hand, or in the act of 
destroying a fellow-man, and at the next conscious ex- 
istence you shall be equal unto the angels." 



118 



Universalis^ not of the Bible. [Part I, 



Surely this must be a powerful dyke raised against the 
floods of corruption flowing from depraved hearts * But 
we are complained of because we put punishment for 
sin far ofT into the future, and thus men are led to think 
they can commit sin with impunity. TTe answer, Chris- 
tian ministers teach punishment beyond the grave for 
sin, because the Bible and reason so teach ; but are they 
in the habit, as is represented, of assuring their hearers 
that this punishment is far off? Speak, ye hundreds of 
thousands who sit under their ministry. Do they not 
constantly proclaim the uncertainty of life, and the 
possibility of their hearers being cut down by dt-ath at 
any moment ; that they may not boast themselves of 
the morrow, for they know not what a day may bring 
forth ? Do they not announce to the wicked that an 
awful eternity awaits them every moment, and that in 
view of it they should now repent and lead a holy life ? 
Do they not apprise them of the fact that probation may 
close with individuals even before death, by the de- 
thronement of reason or the departure of the Holy 
Spirit? Most assuredly they do, as all know. And is 
this saying to men, Go on in sin till the age of seventy, 
eighty, or ninety years, and then repent and escape pun- 
ishment ? Never was there a charge more false than 
this. Another is, that it makes a man a gainer by sin; 
and that the wicked are happier in this world than the 
good. (Sec. LXIII.) But do not Christian pulpits thun- 
der as loudly in proclaiming the evil consequences of sin 
in this life as do the pulpits of Universalists ? From 
them is heard constantly the declaration to sinners, that 

u In pain you travel all your days, 
To reap eternal woe." 

Christian ministers, however, do not assure their hearers 
that there are absolutely no pleasures in sin, for that would 
not only be traveling beyond the Scriptures, (Heb. xi, 



Sec. 46.] Universalism not of the Bible. 



119 



25 ; 2 Thess. ii, 12 ; Prov. iv, 16 ;) but the experience 
of every sinner would contradict it. Hence a part of 
their labor is to point out their short-lived, delusive, and 
ruinous character, that they may be avoided, and to 
show men that when compared with the pleasures of 
righteousness they are as nothing, and that on the whole 
it ; s an evil and bitter thing to sin against God. Uni 
versalists claim that their system is pre-eminently re- 
formatory, because it teaches that the penalty of sin 
visits the transgressor immediately. This is boasted of 
as its great moral power. That it is a perfect failure in 
this respect is known to all who have witnessed its ope- 
rations. (Sec. CXXXV.) It strikes us that the charac- 
ter of the penalty has something to do with deterring 
men from crime. Suppose a law enacted against theft, 
fornication, or drunkenness, the penalty of which is a 
soft, loving rap upon the ear, to be inflicted immediately 
on the commission of the crime, and that, too, all for 
the good of the man who incurs the penalty ; would such 
a penalty be likely to deter men from the commission of 
these crimes merely because there is no escaping it ? 
Now this is an illustration of the Universalist doctrine 
of the penalty for sin. Mr. Skinner says, " A just pun- 
ishment is as essential for our welfare as any thing that 
love can do." — U. III. and Def., p. 250. So punishment 
is not a curse, but a blessing! Thus God is made to 
say to the wicked, " Refrain from sin, for as sure as you 
commit it I will bless you." Who can wonder that 
there is claimed for this system a great reformatory 
power ! But it is said by the advocates of this system 
that the punishment for which they contend is no light 
affair, but is much to be dreaded by the sinner. At this 
point it may be proper to inquire, In what does the pun- 
ishment for a violation of God's moral law consist ? 
While we are told with much assurance that men are 
punished all their sins deserve in this world, we are 



120 



UxiVEPwSALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



somewhat at a loss to learn from Universalist authors 
how this punishment is inflicted. There seems to be a 
strange confounding of things upon this subject. In the 
"Trumpet," No. 1089, is the following question proposed : 
" If, as Universalists contend, a guilty conscience consti- 
tutes the only punishment for sin, how can those with 
a seared conscience be adequately punished in the present 
life ?" Mr. Whittemore replies, " Our querist has based 
his question on a false view of the sentiment of Univer- 
salists. How did he learn that they believed that a 
guilty conscience constitutes the only punishment for sin 
in this life ? Has he learned it from them or from their 
enemies? Suffer us to say, we do not believe that such 
an opinion is entertained by any of them. A guilty con- 
science is no desirable companion on the journey of life, 
and it may be regarded as a punishment of guilt ; but no 
one affirms that it is the only punishment. Are there 
not many punishments ? Poverty, degradation, disease 
brought on by sin, the loss of confidence and respect of 
our fellow-creatures, imprisonments, etc., etc., etc., are 
not all these the punishments of sin in this life ? " But 
Mr. Witherell, who, it seems, we must consider good 
authority in the order, (Sec. IV,) informs us that the 
hell Universalists believe in consists in mental sufferings, 
(p. 11,) and w r ho has not heard from Universalists of the 
hell of conscience ? 

We purpose now to take a view of human suffering 
arising from different sources, and see if we can possibly 
conceive of the sinner as adequately punished in this life 
for his actual sins against God. Let us consider men 
first as physical beings. That men who violate the laws 
of their physical nature suffer, is true ; but is this the 
method God takes to punish sin ? Is physical suffering 
a sure indication of actual sin against God ? Wicked 
men may, and often do, violate the laws of their physic- 
al and organic nature while sinning against God, and 



Sec. 46.] UxiVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



121 



suffer as a consequence. The pious, too, often violate 
these laws in doing good, while influenced by the purest 
of motives, and of course incur no guilt. Other circum- 
stances being equal, the man who breaks a limb in the 
act of taking life experiences no more pain than the man 
who does the same thins: in the act of saving life. A 
vast amount of physical disease comes upon the human 
family independent of their own agency. The wicked- 
ness and ignorance of parents often entail disease 
upon their innocent and virtuous offspring ; and little 
children, incapable of moral action, are often sub- 
jects of extreme suffering for months together. Physic- 
al suffering is the result of a violation of physical laws, 
and these may be violated either with or without our 
own agency. Universalists very generally adopt a de- 
ceptive mode of reasoning upon this subject by confound- 
ing the mere natural effects of sin with its punishment. 
(Sec. XL IX.) The Jews rejected Christ, the true light, 
and greater darkness came upon them. This was the 
natural effect, but not the punishment for this sin. Al- 
though they thus deceive the unthinking, by thus con- 
founding things, yet to serve their purpose at times they 
are obliged to admit the distinction ; for they tell us 
that the Jews were punished for rejecting Christ nearly 
forty years after, when Jerusalem was destroyed. If, 
as has been asserted, sin is its own punishment, then all 
other punishments, whether human or divine, are unjust 
and cruel ; for if all have been punished, why should 
they be re-punished ? Mankind, in practice, universally 
reject the idea that sin punishes itself. Every parent 
who applies the rod to a child for a fault rejects it. 
Every civil magistrate, in passing sentence upon a crim- 
inal, rejects it. God himself, as often as he punishes 
transgressors, rejects it, and thus makes the distinction 
for which we contend. We observe, then, a wide differ- 
ence between suffering for sin and suffering from the 



122 



Universalis^: not of the Bible. [Part I, 



effects of sin. The innocent may suffer from the effects 
of sin, or in consequence of it ; while none but the guilty, 
or the one who takes the place of the guilty, as did the 
Saviour, (1 Pet. iii, 18,) can suffer for sin. What folly, 
then, to account physical suffering the penalty of God's 
law against actual sin, since the innocent experience it as 
well as the guilty. Man is a social being. He possesses 
that nature and those feelings which render him capable 
of society. Shall w r e look in this direction for God's pen- 
alties against sin ? In the social relations are the 
righteous always exalted, and are the wicked always 
cast down ? A competency of w r orldly substance is de- 
sirable in human society ; but is this secured only to the 
good ? Thousands of the purest spirits upon earth have 
been found in poverty's vale, suffering for the necessa- 
ries of life, while some of the wicked have prospered in 
the world, and have had more than a reasonable heart 
could wish. Psa. lxxiii, 7. Marriage forms an important 
relation in society ; but do the good always derive com- 
fort from this relation, and does it always prove an evil 
to the wicked ? We see the pious and affectionate wife 
suffering by the conduct of a perfidious, brutal, and 
drunken husband ; while the faithful, indulgent, and 
pious husband is tormented all his days with a faithless, 
brawling, and discontented wife ; while, on the other 
hand, some of the irreligious find much comfort in the 
conjugal relation. Pious parents often suffer by the 
wickedness of their children, and pious children are often 
afflicted by the ungodliness of parents ; while some of 
the wicked derive comfort from these relations. 

We might name other things in the social state w r here 
the same inequality exists ; but enough has been pre- 
sented to show that not only the wicked, but the right- 
eous, suffer in their social relations, which establishes 
the point that these sufferings cannot be God's penalty 
against sin, for no innocent person will suffer that. As 



Sec. 46.] UxiVEESALISil NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



123 



it regards the providences of God, so dark and myste- 
rious are many of them that it is not always safe to 
judge of a man's moral condition by what we witness of 
God's dealings with him in this life. Job's friends ran 
into this error, and supposed he must have been a very 
wicked man or he would not have suffered as he did, 
when, in fact, he was pre-eminently holy. The truth is, 
this is a state of probation, and not of strict recompense ; 
hence the inequality apparent in the Divine administra- 
tion in this world. God causes his sun to shine not 
merely upon the good, but upon the evil also, and his 
rain descends upon the unjust as well as the just. Matt, 
v, 45. It is not in man's social relations, then, that we 
are to look for the infliction of God's penalties against 
sin ; for observation, experience, and the word of God 
unite in pressing upon us the fact that some wicked per- 
sons prosper in these relations, while others who are 
pious suffer in them. Furthermore, such has been the 
corrupt state of the world, as its history abundantly 
shows, that true piety has often called down upon its 
possessor all manner of cruel sufferings by imprisonment, 
rack, and otherwise, while many of the wicked have es- 
caped such visitations. 

Man possesses conscience, or, as it has been denomi- 
nated, " moral sense." Does he suffer from this source 
all the penalty of the moral law in this life ? Some as- 
sert that he does. This we deny, and submit the follow- 
ing, which might be greatly extended, to show the folly 
of such an assumption. It is a fundamental principle 
of modern Universalism that no man escapes any just 
punishment for sin ; and of course if the punishment for 
sin is confined to the conscience in this life, and if there 
be a just administration, every one must be punished in 
exact proportion to his crimes. To show that this is 
impossible, let us suppose two cases. A man becomes 
acquainted with the fact that a neighbor has a large 



124 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



sum of money, and resolves on murdering him to secure 
it. He follows him into a dark avenue, and in fifteen 
minutes from the time he formed the purpose his neigh- 
bor is a dying man, and the murderer himself senseless 
by his side, in consequence of a death-shot given in self- 
defense by his murdered victim. Now, according to the 
theory we oppose, that murderer could have suffered but 
fifteen minutes in his conscience, if we date his crime 
back to the time he formed the intention ; and when we 
take into the account the excitement connected with such 
an act, we cannot conceive of very acute suffering dur- 
ing that short period. 

Another case. A man has the same opportunity, 
forms the same purpose, and in the same space of time 
murders his neighbor, but secures the money, escapes 
himself, and survives his murdered victim twenty 
years ; and not only suffers from conscience, but suspi- 
cion is fixed upon him as the murderer: he is arrested, 
examined, thrown into jail for six months or more to 
await the sitting of the court, has his trial, and under- 
goes all the fearful apprehensions of a death upon the 
gallows. Proof, however, fails, and he is cleared by the 
court, but is not cleared from the just suspicions of the 
entire community. In these two cases the crimes are 
equal, but are the punishments equal ? Does the man 
who lives twenty years after the act of murder suffer- 
no more in his conscience than the one who dies in the 
act? 

If we look this subject in the face, we shall see most 
clearly that either God's ways are not equal, or else 
that there is future punishment, and the Universalist 
notion is false. And then, as if to cap the climax of 
absurdity, this dogma teaches that the man who dies in 
the murderous act becomes as the angels of God in 
heaven ; while the one who survives, yet no more 
guilty, suffers a Universalist hell in this world for 



Sec. 46.] Uniyeesalism not of the Bible, 



125 



twenty years ! That tbe 'moral sensibilities become 
blunted by a continual course of sin, so that there is 
less suffering from conscience as the sinner advances in 
crime, is confirmed by experience, common observation, 
and the Bible. Indeed, all writers upon moral science 
have taken this view. The following is from Wayland : 
" The man who habitually violates his conscience, not 
only is more feebly impelled to do right, but he be- 
comes less sensible to the pain of doing wrong. A 
child feels poignant remorse after the first act of pilfer- 
ing. Let the habit of dishonesty be formed, and he will 
become so hackneyed in sin that he will perpetrate 
robbery with no other feeling than that of mere fear of 
detection. The first oath almost palsies the tongue of 
the stripling. It requires but a few months, however, 
to transform him into the bold and thoughtless blas- 
phemer. The murderer, after the death of his first vic- 
tim, is agitated with all the horrors of guilt. He may, 
however, pursue his trade of blood until he have no 
more feeling for man than the butcher for the animal 
which he slaughters. Burk, who was in the habit of 
murdering men for the purpose of selling their bodies 
to the surgeon * for dissection, confessed this of him- 
self." — Moral Scie?iee, p. 77. 

Speaking of this influence of sin, Paul declares of 
some that their consciences were "seared with a hot 
iron." 1 Tim. iv, 2. Conscience is not, as some assert, 
the unerring voice of God, but is right or wrong, ac- 
cording as the moral judgment and moral sense are 
right or wrong. As to mental suffering, we hazard 
nothing in saying that the man of tender sympathy, 
who, by mistake or accident, takes the life of a fellow- 
being, suffers a hundred-fold more, mentally, than the 
hardened wretch like Burk, who deliberately murders a 
man for a few paltry dollars. Since, then, it is an es- 
tablished fact that suffering from this source in this life 



126 



Uniyjeks^lism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



is so far from increasing with crime that it actually 
diminishes, it cannot be the way in which a righteous 
moral governor punishes sin. The trouble experienced 
by the sinner from conscience is caused by her remon- 
strance, under the Spirit of God, discovering to him his 
guilt, and pointing him to the law with its fearful pen- 
alty. This, conscience continues to do most faithfully 
until the Spirit is grieved, and she is hushed by re- 
peated acts of sin and rebellion against God, and the 
sinner becomes past feeling, (Eph, iv, 19,) and is left to 
believe a lie that he might be damned, because he be- 
lieved not the truth, but u had pleasure in unrighteous- 
nets." 2 Thess. ii, 12. The sufferings experienced here 
may be regarded as the consequences of sin, but not 
strictly as its penalty. Let us illustrate. The penalty 
for highway robbery, we will say, is hard labor in the 
State prison for thirty years. A man commits this 
crime, is arrested, examined, and cast into the common 
jail to await his trial, which is to take place in six 
months. Satisfied that his guilt must appear, and that 
naught but the dread penalty awaits him, his mental 
sufferings are great. He is deprived, too, of his liberty, 
social enjoyments, and bodily health, by his incarcera- 
tion. Xow w r e ask, Are these sufferings of the prisoner 
to be regarded as the penalty of the law against rob- 
bery ? By no means. The court is not authorized to 
abate six months of the penalty in consideration of his 
having been six months in the common jail. Suffering 
in the jail for six months is one of the consequences of 
the crime, but not the penalty, as all will see. So the 
sinner against God often suffers in this world physi- 
cally, socially, and mentally, in consequence of his sins; 
but reason and scripture both unite in proclaiming the 
fact that there is punishment after death for the un- 
godly. 

The doctrine of future punishment has been called, 



Sec. 47.] UxiYERSALISM >~0T OF THE BlBLE. 



127 



by way of reproach, a heathenish doctrine. That not 
only those nations who have been favored with the 
Scriptures, but those who have been destitute of them, 
have believed in future retributions in some form, is 
true ; and this, so far from forming an objection to the 
doctrine, is but another evidence of its truthfulness. 
Xo candid mind acquainted with human affairs can be- 
lieve for a moment that the righteous and the wicked 
are adequately rewarded and punished in this life ; and 
it is this common sense view which carries the mind of 
man to the future world, where this will take place. 
This furnishes a reason why this doctrine has obtained 
so generally, even where the Bible is not known. It 
will be seen by the candid reader, we think, from the 
few thoughts here presented, that men do not receive 
the penalty of God's law against sin in either their 
physical, social, or mental sufferings in this world, or in 
all of them put together. It remains a truth, then, that 
sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, 
and that after death is the judgment. That God sends 
afflictions upon his children in this world for their good, 
we readily learn from the Scriptures ; and that God pun- 
ishes nations as such, here, is equally clear; and it is 
well known that when God showers his judgments 
down upon nations, the innocent often suffer with the 
guilty. This, however, only furnishes another argu- 
ment in favor of a day in the future world when God 
shall judge in righteousness. 

XL VII. " Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give 
thee a crown of life." Rev. ii, 10. 

What means the conditionally of this promise if 
Universalism is sound? It is perfect nonsense; for if 
all are to be saved, as Universalists assert, what matters 
it whether they are faithful or unfaithful ? Are not the 
^.faithful just as much heirs to the crown of life as the 



128 



TJniyersaxism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



faithful ? This short text is of itself sufficient to refute 
the infidel sentiment, that our conduct here has nothing 
to do with securing our future bliss. 

XLVXXI. " Labor not for the meat which perisheth, 
but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life." 
John vi, 27. 

Mr. Balfour, in his Reply to Stuart, (p. 74.) says: 
" You assume that 'everlasting life' refers to the future 
endless happiness of the righteous. This I deny. Ever- 
lasting life designates indeed the happiness of the right- 
eous, but it is their happiness in this world. By this 
Christ is made to say, fc{ Labor not for that meat which 
perisheth, but for that which endureth unto happiness 
in this world." And does not the happiness enjoyed in 
this world perish? This text, as all must see, lies di- 
rectly against that form of error which denies the neces- 
sity of anxiety and labor in order to secure future bliss. 
" A company were following the Saviour for the loaves 
and fishes, and like many at the present time, were 
laboring exclusively for worldly good. Christ rebukes 
them, and exhorts them to labor for 'blessings which 
endure — abide, unto everlasting life. 5 How would such 
an exhortation sound from the lips of a Universalis!; 
preacher? Had Christ been a preacher of Universal- 
ism the Jews might have turned upon him and said: 
You acknowledge that our present business is to pro- 
vide for our temporal wants, our eternal wants being 
above and beyond our reach. In seeking loaves and 
fishes, then, we are in our appropriate sphere ! — 
Mtissell. 

XLIX. " And the angels which kept not their first 
estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved 
in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment 
of the great day." Jude 6. 



Sec. 49.] TTniyersamsm not of the Bible. 



129 



The author of the "Guide- 5 asserts that there is 
nothing in this passage which renders it necessary to 
apply it to any order of beings above men. He makes 
a display of Greek criticism, to show that angel signi- 
fies a messenger; and asserts that the word angel is 
not a name of nature, but of office, which no one to our 
knowledge ever denied, and then states, respecting their 
not having kept their first estate and leaving their own 
habitation, that ; * all this has taken place among men on 
the earth." On the word everlasting an opportunity is 
afforded to show that it is not always used to signify 
endless duration ; hence we are reminded of the ever- 
lasting mountains, hills, priesthood, etc. And as it re- 
spects the judgment, he inquires, i; But is there no judg- 
ment in this world? We read, £ Verily there is a God 
that judgetb [where ?] in the earth.' " (Sec. LI.) Con- 
cerning the phrase " great day" he finds somewhere in 
the Old Testament that " the day of the Lord is near," 
and somewhere in the Xew Testament that "the great 
day of his wrath is come ;" and this of course is suffi- 
cient, with Mr. TThittemore, to deprive the text in.Tude 
of its future-state reference. But while he does this, he 
leaves us staring about for its true interpretation. The 
absurdity of a reference to Jerusalem is so great that 
even Mr. W. dares not hazard it. Observe, the author 
of the " Guide " denies that these angels are superhu- 
man, insists that they are men, and that their retribu- 
tion is in this world. Xow how soon are men punished 
for their sins, according to this same " Guide ? " Let 
Mr. W. answer. " One important truth embraced by 
Universalists is, that the punishment of sin is not de- 
layed until the future existence, bat that it is swift, 
sure, and inevitable ; that sin goes hand in hand with 
woe throughout its whole duration; that it is itself 
hell, into which the sinner cannot plunge without feel- 
ing its flames and torments, In regard to retribution, 

9 



130 Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



such is the doctrine of Universfilists." — Guide, -p. 262, 
Here it is given, as a denominational sentiment, that 
sin is not only punished as soon as committed, but that 
sinners are punished while committing it ; that sin " is 
itself heU^ that is, sin and punishment for sin are one 
and the same thing ! ! But in the text under considera- 
tion, the angels, or men, as Mr. W. will have it, are 
said to be " reserved in everlasting chains, under dark- 
ness, unto the judgment of the great day ;" and we are 
also informed (2 Pet. ii, 9) that " The Lord knoweth 
how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to re- 
serve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be pun- 
ished. Now here is a particular, specified period, 
called the day of judgment, for which ungodly men are 
reserved, in which they are to be punished. Call this 
period Jerusalem's destruction, or what we please, it is 
equally at war with the above quoted view of punish- 
ment. What folly to talk of sinners being reserved unto 
any particular period for punishment if they are pun- 
ished without any remission as soon as they sin, or 
while sinning. According to this, every Jew had been 
punished all his individual sins deserved, up to the mo- 
ment when the Romans besieged the city of David. 
To whom shall we attribute this folly ? Not to the in- 
spired apostle, surely, but to Universalist teachers who 
have perverted the word of God. ~No unsophisticated 
mind would ever see a mere temporal calamity in the 
words of Jude. He wrote for those who had been edu- 
cated in the belief of future retributions, and they 
could but understand him as teaching the same doc- 
trine. See Sec. L. 

L. " The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out 
of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day 
of judgment, to be punished." 2 Pet. ii, 9. 

The author of the " Guide " has a very summary way 



SeC. 50.] TJxiVEESALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



131 



of disposing of those knotty texts which teach most 
clearly a future judgment. It is to refer his readers to 
what he has said upon texts partly parallel, or perhaps 
referring to another subject altogether. For, to come 
right out and plainly say that Peter meant to say, " The 
Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of tempta- 
tion, and to reserve the unjust unto the destruction of 
Jerusalem, to be punished," would present such an ab- 
surdity that even his admirers would start back. He 
deemed it, doubtless, much more safe to withhold his 
explanation, and refer us to what he has said on Jucle 6, 
where an opportunity is afforded for a display on the 
words angels, darkness, chains, everlasting, etc. Mr. 
Balfour, however, who never stands for trifles when writ- 
ing upon the Scriptures, hesitates not to throw this into 
the Jerusalem catastrophe. "Essays," p. 25 7. So the 
wicked of the apostle's time were reserved four years, 
at least, to be punished in the siege of the Romans ! 
But did none of the unjust of the apostle's time die be- 
fore the Romans came against the holy city? Again, 
how does the idea of their being reserved unto that time 
comport with the notion that " as quick as the thunder 
follows the lightning's flash, just so quick does punish- 
ment follow crime." — Withered, p. 31. Is the thunder un- 
heard till four years after the lightning's flash ? Peter's 
epistle bears date A. D. 66 — Jerusalem was overthrown 
A. D. 70, four years after. The text means just what it 
appears to mean. See Sec. XLIX, also Sec. VIII. 

LI. l< For judgment I came into this world." John ix, 39. 
" Verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth." Psa. 
lviii, 11. 

" Xow is the judgment of this world." John xii, 31. 
" I came not to judge the world." John xii, 47. 
"I will raise him up at the last day." John vi, 40. 

In the Bible we find the words judge and judgment 



132 



Universalis^! not of the Bible. [Part I, 



are frequently applied to events which have their ful- 
fillment in this world, and none, to oar knowledge, ever 
disputed it. But were we to derive our knowledge 
from Universalist authors only, we shonld conclude that 
those who oppose their views either wickedly deny this, 
or else are grossly ignorant of the fact. The true ques- 
tion at issue between us is, Is there a future judgment ? 
The negative of this is taken by their Avriters, and then 
they go on to prove most conclusively, from the Script- 
ures, that God judges in this world ; and this they 
offer as a sufficient reason why there shall be no future 
judgment ! Take the following from Mr. Whittemore* 
as a specimen : 

" ' For judgment I am come into thts world.' John 
ix, 39. It is absolutely disrespectful to the Son of God, 
who tells us that he came into this world for judg- 
ment, to suppose that judgment is in some other world! 
Hear that, all ye Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, 
and so-called orthodox Christians, who oppose God by 
saying that Christ has gone into the future world for 
judgment." — Trumpet, April 28, 1855. 

With the same logical force do they frequently em- 
ploy Psa. Iviii, 11, "Verily he is a God that judgeth in 
the earth." The argument is this : God judgeth in the 
earth ; therefore there will be no future judgment. The 
sophistry of this will at once appear by adopting this 
method with other subjects. For instance, God is glori- 
fied in the earth ; therefore God will not be glorified in 
the future state ! 44 On earth peace, good- will toward 
men;" therefore there can be neither peace nor good- 
will toward men in the future world! 

" We which have believed do enter into rest," (Heb. 
iv, 3 ;) therefore there can be no rest in heaven ! 

Take the words saved and salvation, which are often 
used to express temporal deliverance and the state of 
the justified soul in this world. Universalists talk much 



SeC. 51.] TJXIVEKSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



133 



about salvation in the future world, as all know. Now 
what would be thought were we to rise up and deny 
future salvation, and make a great parade of texts in 
capitals, to prove that salvation pertained to this life — 
that men are said to be saved now, in a great number 
of instances? Suppose that, to meet all the texts Uni- 
versalists could urge in support of future salvation, we 
were to insist upon it that they contain no evidence of 
future salvation for any of our race, and should con- 
tend, most stoutly, that God's salvation is in this world, 
and urge in proof of this that the Israelites (Exod. 
xiv, 13) were commanded to "stand still aud see the 
salvation of the Lord," which they could not have 
done if salvation is in the future state ; and further- 
more, to put the whole matter to rest, the words of Paul 
should be presented, (2 Cor. vi, 2,) " Xow is the day 
of salvation." And suppose, too, that we should de- 
mand of them such texts as the following, to establish 
the doctrine that men would be saved in the future 
state: "Men shall be holy and happy in the future 
icorld y" "Men shall be saved in the immortal state;" 
"Men shall be saved beyond the grave" Suppose, we 
say, that we should deny that there is any salvation in 
the future world, and bring such proofs, and make such 
a demand to sustain it, what would be thought of such 
a course ? It would be judged the vilest quibbling, and 
a most egregious perversion of God's word. But as 
wicked as this would be, it is precisely the course pur- 
sued by Universalists respecting the judgment. If we 
speak of a future judgment, they reply with an air of 
triumph, (John xii, 31,) "Now is the judgment of this 
world and the author of the " Guide" makes a simi- 
lar demand with the one above named respecting future 
punishment, (Sec. CXIV.) 

Since the last named text is so much in use, a few 
thoughts upon it will be given. Universalists seem to 



134 



UNIVERSALIS}! NOT OP THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



consider it of great importance, because the present tense 
is used. C4 Now is" etc. This was spoken nearly forty 
years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Well then, 
if, because the Saviour said, "Now is the judgment of 
this world," a future general judgment must be set 
aside, then for the same reason must a judgment at the 
destruction of Jerusalem be set aside. Take this out of 
their theory, what will they do with the texts they find 
it so convenient to refer to that event ? There is an- 
other text in the same chapter with this which this 
class of expositors see fit to let alone. It is this, (verse 
47,) " I came not to judge the world/' We have Mr. 
Balfour's Essay of 139 pages, in which he professes to 
examine all those places where the words judge and 
judgment occur in the New Testament, but no notice 
is taken of this text. There are five volumes of their 
books before us, each having a somewhat copious index 
of texts, yet none of them name this. So far as mem- 
ory serves, we have never seen it named in any of their 
writings. Why they are thus silent upon verse 47, 
while they so often quote a part of verse 31 of the same 
chapter, the reader can easily judge. Verse 47 is not 
in the right shape for them. The whole of verse 31 
reads thus: "Now is the judgment of this world: now 
shall the prince of this world be cast out." Mr. French, 
the Universalist minister named Sec. I, while attempt- 
ing to correct his brethren in a sermon before the Maine 
Convention, says : 

"But do we not injure our cause by quoting the 
words of our Saviour, saying, c Now is the judgment 
of this world ; now is the prince of this world cast out ? ' 
Jchn xii, 31. Is not Wakefield right, who applies this 
text to the decision which the J ews were about to make 
against Jesus; rejecting him, and declaring him worthy 
of death? But how different this from the judgment 
which God executes upon the world. Should we not 



SeC. 51.] UxiYEESALIS^I NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



135 



make improvements by being more cautious, by selecting 
proof-texts with more care and judgment ? " — Banner, 
vol. ix, p. 5. 

Their perversions are so numerous that Mr, French 
has a task before him if he thinks to reform the order 
In this respect ; and furthermore, should he succeed, it 
would be the death of the system. This, the conven- 
tion, it would seem, were aware of, and were so much 
displeased with his effort that they did not vote the 
publication of his sermon. Christ says, (John xii, 47, 
48,) "If any man hear my words, and believe not, I 
judge him not ; for I come not to judge the world, but 
to save the world ; . . . the word that I have spoken, 
the same shall judge him in the last day." In this we 
are taught that the design of Christ's first advent was 
not to judge men, but to save them, and are referred to 
a future judgment, when men sh .ill be judged for their 
treatment of Christ's word or doctrine. This is to take 
place at the last day. While the author of the " Guide' 5 
fails to give us light upon verse 47, he does favor us 
with an exposition of verse 48. Upon this, as found 
"Guide," p. 166, we shall offer a few thoughts. The 
course pursued is, as usual with this class of writers, 
both evasive and sophistical, and discovers any thin^ 
but a desire to bring out the true sense. He carries his 
readers away to the parable of the vineyard, (Matt. 

xxi, ) then to the parable of the marriage feast, (Matt. 

xxii, ) then to Matt, xxiv, where the phrase "end of the 
world" occurs, then to Heb. x, 25, where the apostle 
speaks of a "day approaching," then to 1 John ii, 18, 
where the phrase "last time " is found, and he will have 
it that all these texts relate to the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, and assumes that John xii, 48, refers to the same 
event. Xow we ask, if truth only was the object of 
this man, Why did he not refer his readers to the other 
passages, where our Saviour uses the expression " last 



136 



Univeesausm xot or the Bible. [P art ^ 



day ? " No one could learn from what he has said in 
the u Guide " on this text that the phrase " last day " 
occurred anywhere else in the Xew Testament. Christ 
says, (John vi, 40.) " And this is the will of him that 
sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and be- 
lieveth on him, may have everlasting life : and I will 
raise him up at the last day" See, also, verses 39, 44, 
and 54 of the same chapter, where the phrase is used in 
the same sense. How this expression was understood 
in our Saviour's time we may learn from the conversa- 
tion between him and Martha on the death and resur- 
rection of Lazarus, (John xi, 23, 24,) u Jesus saith unto 
her, thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto 
him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection 
at the last day* (Sec, LXXXIX.) 

It is obvious that the expression "last day," as used 
by our Lord and Martha, refers to the general resurrec- 
tion. This being the case, can any be at a loss to know 
the meaning of the Saviour in the passage under con- 
sideration ? Christ says four times (John vi) that he 
will raise men up at the " last day." Martha had con- 
fidence in the fact that Lazarus would rise in the resur- 
rection in the last day, (John xi, 24 ;) and Christ says, 
(John xii, 48,) of him who rejects him and his truth, 
"The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge 
him in the last day." It must be obvious to all, we 
think, that if one of these texts refers to Jerusalem's de- 
struction, they all do, which represents Martha as be- 
lieving in the resurrection of her brother fiom the dead 
at the destruction of Jerusalem ! These texts, taken 
together, connect the judgment with the resurrection. 
They teach a resurrection and judgment at the end 
of time, or in the last day, which is fatal to modern 
Universalis!!!. This the author of the "Guide" proba- 
bly saw, hence his labor to turn the eyes of his reader 
to some half dozen other texts, having no connection 



SeC. 52.] UxiVERSALISM 1X0T OF THE BlBLE. 



187 



whatever with the one before us, while he would keep 
from their sight five passages in which the same expres- 
sion is found. Thus the word of God is handled deceit- 
fully, and Universalism propagated. 

One thought more. Mr. Skinner asserts that a All 
the judgments of which the Scriptures speak are to 
destroy sin and reform the sinner."- — U. III. and Def. 
p. 248. '* I came not to judge the world," says the 
Saviour; or in other words, to harmonize with Mr. Skin- 
ner's doctrine, tfi I came not to destroy sin and reform 
the sinner!" Did the Saviour mean to say that? 
Truth never thus belies the Saviour and his work. 

LII. " Ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins ; 
whither I go, ye cannot come," etc. John viii, 21, 22, 
23, 24. 

" Te shall die in your sins." We are told (" Trum- 
pet," ^o. 577) that by this "Jesus referred to the ap- 
proaching destruction of the Jewish nation," and that 
w he spoke of a national and not a natural death." But 
what evidence is there that our Lord is discoursing: 
about Jerusalem's overthrow here ? Just none at all, 
either in the text or context. " Ye shall seek me." Have 
not the Jews as a people continued to reject Christ to 
the present hour? How clear it is that the Saviour 
was speaking, not of the nation, but of individuals. 
Mr. Page in his notes disagrees with Mr. Whit tern ore. 
and says: "Some understand this to denote the national 
or political death which soon afterward befell tlie 
Jews on account of their sinfulness. To me it seems 
more probable that Jesus used the phrase snail die in 
its literal sense. I understand his argument thus ; You 
are now sinful, and especially guilty oi rejecting trie 
3Iessiah, whose divine mission has been sufficients 
authenticated: I shall soon depart from the earth; yon 
will continue seeking for the Messiah, (for me, though 



133 



Ukiyeesalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



ye know it not,) but cannot come to him or find him, 
for he will be in "heaven. In this hopeless search you will 
persist, and will die without having found or recognized 
him — guilty of having rejected him when he was mani- 
fested to you, in addition to all your other sins." 

So we see that the Universalis commentator admits 
that it is not a national, but a literal death of the per- 
sons the Saviour addressed, who were to " die in their 
sins." But it is said that Christ expressed the same to 
his disciple (John xiii, 33) that he did to the Jews, 
namely, " Whither I go ye cannot come." By a com- 
parison of the passages and the connection in which they 
are found, it will be seen that there is a very important 
difference, 

1. Christ told the Jews that they should die in their 
sins. But he said nothing like this to his disciples. 

2. Christ said to the Jews, " Ye are from beneath ; I 
am from above : ye are of this world ; I am not of this 
world ; " and assigns it as a reason why he doomed them 
to die in their sins. This he never said to his disciples. 

3. Christ explained to Peter whaf he meant by saying 
to his disciples, " Whither I go ye cannot come," as fol- 
lows : ct Whither I go thou canst not follow me now : 
hut thou shalt follow me afterward" But he gave no 
such explanation and promise to the Jews ; but, on the 
contrary, he declared to them most positively that they 
should die in their sins, and that they should not go 
where he did. 

The author of the " Guide," p. 165, says, after quoting 
the words addressed to Peter, chap, xiii, 36, " The same 
word may be applied to the Jews. They could not fol- 
low Christ then, but they would at another time." Mr. 
Whittemore may so apply these words, but Christ him- 
self gives them no such application. The oft perverted 
text, H So all Israel shall be saved," is lugged in by the 
author of the " Guide " to supply the Saviour's omission, 



Sec. 53.] Uniyeesalism not of the Bible. 139 



and to prove that all the Jews will go to heaven where 
Christ has gone. See Sec. V, where this text is examined. 

LIII. " Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and 
persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against 
you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding 
glad; for great is your reward in heaven." Matt, v, 11, 
12 ; also, Luke vi, 22, 23. 

There lies before us a work entitled " Scripture Doc- 
trine," by S. R. Smith, designed for the instruction of 
children in Universalism, and has been used quite ex- 
tensively in Universalist Sabbath-schools. The follow- 
ing is the note upon this text entire, as found p. 28 : 
M Nothing is more common than for professing Chris- 
tians to speak of heaven as a glorified state after death, 
and as being the place where believers will receive their 
reward. And yet it is believed there is no one place 
in which the word is used in the Bible where it ob- 
viously means life or happiness, or the place of these, 
after death. Xor does any one seriously expect the fe- 
licity of immortality as the reward of his obedience ; on 
the contrary, it is acknowledged to be the free gift of 
God. Why, then, encourage others to hope for that as 
a reward which none can expect but as a gift ? The 
truth is, the Gospel is called heaven, and he who believes 
the Gospel is in heaven. Eph. ii, 6." 

This is the instruction Universalists are imparting to 
the youth of our land under the guise of Christianity, 
and this is the manner in which they dispose of this 
precious passage which has afforded support to Chris- 
tians in all ao;es of the Church under the most afflicting 
circumstances ; which has enabled them to meet death 
in all its cruel forms, having respect to the recompense 
of reward. But now, to support a rotten system, this 
must be given up ; and we are told, by those who pro- 
fess to be ministers of Christ, that it is folly to " speak 



Universalis^ not of the Bible. [Pait I, 



of heaven as a glorified state after death" and that 
"there is no one place in which the word is used in the 
Bible where it obviously means the life or happiness of 
these after death ! " So we see a future heaven is de- 
nied as well as a future hell. Christians, then, are not 
to speak of heaven as a glorified state after death, and 
there is no reward for the righteous in the future world ! 
This is Universalism. But let us turn from tins to the 
Bible and see if there is such a place as heaven after 
death. Where is the Saviour? *' So then after the 
Lord had spoken unto them j he was received up into 
heaven and sat on the right hand of God." Mark xvi, 19. 
" Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye here gazing up into 
heaven ? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you 
into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen 
him go into heaven." Acts i, 11. Peter, speaking of 
Christ, says : " Who has gone into heaven and is on 
the right hand of God." 1 Pet. hi, 22. Paul says : 
" For Christ has not entered into the holy places made 
with hands, which are the figures of the true ; but into 
heaven itself, to appear in the presence of God for us." 
Heb. ix, 24. 

Are any to be in heaven but Christ ? The Saviour 
says, (John xiv, 2, 3,) when about to go to his Father: 
u In my Fathers house are many mansions." "I'go to 
prepare a place for you, that where I am, there ye may 
be also." Speaking of this heavenly family, Paul says, 
(Eph. hi, 15,) Ci For this cause I bow my knee unto the 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole 
family in heaven and earth is named ; " and in view of 
the glories of heaven he says, (Rom. viii, 17, 13,) " And 
if children, then heirs ; heirs of God and joint heirs with 
Christ ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may 
be glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings 
of this present time are not worthy to be compared with 
the glory which shall be revealed in us," Christ pro* 



Sec. 53.] UxiVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



141 



hibits laying up treasures on the earth, (Matt, vi, 19, 20,) 
but enjoins laying up treasures in heaven. Peter, in 
speaking to his brethren of an incorruptible inheritance, 
says of it, (1 Pet. i, 4, 5,) " Reserved in heaven for 
you, who are kept by the power of God through faith 
unto salvation."" 

A host of other Scriptures might be adduced equally 
plain. These teach that heaven is a place, and that 
Christians may expect a glorified state after death, too 
plainly to need comment. Again, it is said, "The Gos- 
pel is called heaven, and he who believes the Gospel is in 
heaven;" and in proof of this bold assertion we are 
referred to Eph. ii, 6. Does this teach that the Gospel 
is heaven, and that believers are in heaven? "And 
hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in 
heavenly places in Christ Jesus." What is there here 
to prove that the Gospel is heaven, and that believers 
are in it ? They sit together in heavenly places, that is, 
places partaking of the nature of heaven, but not heaven 
itself. " He who believes the Gospel is in heaven." But 
what is it to believe the Gospel, according to Univer- 
salist divines ? It is to believe in Universalism, for with 
them nothing else is the Gospel, as all know who hear 
them. So heaven is the inheritance of those, and those 
only, who believe in Universalism, and they are now in 
heaven ! Reader, did it ever occur to you before that 
those around you who clamor for Universalism are now 
the pure inhabitants of heaven ? The doctrine of the 
Saviour in the passage is this : The privations, persecu- 
tions, and sufferings of every kind the Christian shall be 
called to endure in this world for his sake, will enhance 
his bliss and glory in the future world. The same thing 
is expressed 2 Cor. iv, 16-18. A heart-comforting and 
encouraging doctrine to afflicted, faithful Christians ; and 
palsied be the hand that would deprive them of it by 
infidel perversions and sophistries= No Christian merits, 



H2 



Uniyeesalism not op the Bible. [Part I, 



or expects to merit, heaven ; but God has graciously 
promised a reward in heaven in proportion to our suffer- 
ings and faithfulness here, for his sake. (On salvation a 
gift, see Sec. XCVIII.) 

LIV. " For thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrec- 
tion of the just." Luke xiv, 14. 

This text connects human conduct with the eternal 
state, and of course it must be destroyed in some way ; 
so Mr. Whittemore occupies nearly eight pages of his 
"Notes on the Parables," contending with common 
sense and the Bible to make it appear that the resurrec- 
tion of the just took place when Jerusalem was destroy- 
ed. Speaking of Christ's coming to destroy the Jewish 
state, he says, ("N. on Par.," p. 168,) "At this time the 
Christians were to be exalted, raised from a low condi- 
tion." Again: "This was the resurrection of the just; 
and at that time, those who had done them favors were 
to be recompensed." The Saviour was at the table of a 
Pharisee, whose creed included the doctrine of a resur- 
rection, both of the just and unjust, (Sec. X,) and he ad- 
dressed him thus : " When thou makest a dinner or a sup- 
per, call not thy friends nor thy brethren, neither thy kins- 
men nor thy rich neighbors ; lest they also bid thee again, 
and a recompense be made thee ; but when thou makest a 
feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and 
thou shalt be blessed ; for they cannot recompense thee, 
for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the 
just." Did the Saviour mean to say to this Pharisee, 
You may look to the destruction of Jerusalem for your 
reward for entertaining the poor, maimed, lame and blind, 
for they shall all be raised to eminence and wealth then ? 
The thought forms the very climax of absurdity. To at- 
tempt a serious refutation of such burlesque on the 
words of the guileless Redeemer would be useless. " It 
is sufficient to say that this explanation makes the divine 



SeC. 55.] UxiVERSALISVI XOT OF THE BlBLE. 



143 



Saviour contradict himself in the same sentence. To re- 
duce it to plain English it would read thus : Give not to 
the rich. Why ? Because they can and will repay. 
But give to the poor. Why ? Because they will soon 
become rich and then they will return the whole !" — 
Whitman. 

LV. u The Lord will not cast off forever." Lam. iii, 31. 
" Who will have all men to be saved.' 5 1 Tim. ii, 4. 

We take the following from a number of the Trumpet : 

64 NEGATIVE AXD AFFIRMATIVE. 

" 'The Lord will not cast of! forever.' Lam. iii, 31. 

" c God will have all men saved.' 1 Tim. ii, 4. 

"It is necessary to reverse both these, if the doctrine 
of endless misery be true, and say God will cast off 
forever — God will not have all men to be saved, and 
come to the knowledge of the truth." 

This doubtless is considered a potent argument in fa- 
vor of their doctrine by the readers of the "Trumpet," 
while the whole of it is built upon the perversion of two 
texts. The text in Lam. iii, 31, is made to teach as fol- 
lows : " The Lord will not cast off endlessly in the future 
state" When a stubborn text presents itself teaching 
endless punishment, it must be destroyed in some way ; 
then come the quibbles, and quirks, and twists, and soph- 
istries, and negatives, and bold assertions, and orthodox 
authorities, and garbled extracts, and Scripture refer- 
ences, and Greek criticisms; and, while the "poor blind, 
candidate " of a reader is groping about amid all this 
smoke, the question is fully settled, and he is brought out 
into the glorious light of Universalism by, " The Lord will 
not cast off forever," significantly put in italics or blazing 
capitals. For a specimen, see Whittemore's " Guide," 
pp. 124-128. Xow this text has no more reference to a 
future state than it has to Jehu's furious driving. Did 



144 



TLSTVERSALISM XOT OF TEE BlBLE. [Part I, 



it read, "The Lord icill cast off forever," and were we to 
bring it to prove our doctrine, we should be met with 
criticisms showing that the word forever, as used here, 
does not mean endless ; that the subject over which 
the prophet was lamenting was not a casting off in a 
future state, but of the Jewish nation, in this world. 
Thai this was spoken of the Jews, "the daughter of 
Zion," "the daughter of Judah," all will see who will 
examine. The Jews were then cast off. They were in 
captivity at Babylon, and the prophet received en- 
couragement from God that their captivity should have 
an end, — that he would not cast off forever, but that the 
nation should be restored to their native land. This per- 
version is so glaring that some of the ministers of that 
order begin to see that it is no benefit to their cause. 
In the " Banner," vol. ix, p. 5, is a sermon by AT. R. 
French, delivered before the Maine Convention of Uni- 
versalists, in which is the following : 

" We contend that future punishment is not taught in 
the Old Testament ; that all its inducements to reforma- 
tion are drawn from the fear of punishment and hope of 
reward, as suffered or enjoyed in this life. Taking this 
ground, do we act consistently in quoting texts from 
that book to prove that all men will be happy in the 
future life ? Does it look like going on to perfection ? 
To specify texts, who has not heard the declaration of 
Jeremiah : ' The Lord will not cast off forever,' Lam. iii, 
31, adduced in proof of our doctrine ? Yet it has, prob- 
ably, no more reference to the future life than the tem- 
poral state of the aborigines of America. Xor is this 
the sole text that might be mentioned ; in a certain class 
of publications such evidence abounds." 

True, Mr. French, this is not the only perverted text, 
and L^niversalist publications do abound with such evi- 
dence ; and it is also true that Universalism can be sus- 
tained in no other way. The text connected with this 



SeC. 55,] UnIVERSALTSM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 145 



to make out the argument is equally a perversion. Rev. 
Sidney Turner, who renounced this error in 1842, says 
that while a Universalist preacher he once took this 
text, and so conscious was he that it did not teach the 
salvation of all men, that he announced it to his congre- 
gation, and told them that he thought it expressed a will 
of desire, and not a will of purpose. This, of course, was 
not very grateful to his audience. We quote from 
memory. Hear Mr. French upon this text in the ser- 
mon just named. He says : 

" And would it not subject one to certain condemna- 
tion, a query might be raised respecting the language 
of Paul, saying : 6 Who will have all men to be saved, 
and come unto the knowledge of the truth.' 1 Tim. ii, 4. 
For saith Paul, c I exhort therefore that first of all, 
supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of 
thanks, be made for all men ; for kings, and for all that 
are in authority : that we may lead a quiet and peace- 
able life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good 
and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour ; who 
will have all men to be saved, and come unto the knowl- 
edge of the truth.' If we let the context explain, will it 
appear that salvation, here, means any thing more than 
leading a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and 
honesty, wmich all those will possess who come to the 
knowledge of the truth ? " 

If Mr. French had persevered in throwing aside all the 
perverted texts he would have torn up the whole foun- 
dation, and the crazy and baseless fabric of Universal- 
ism would have come tumbling about his ears years ago. 
Mr. F. is still a Universalist preacher. We see, then, 
that Mr. Whittemore perverts two texts to make his 
argument. There are no two Scriptures more frequently 
quoted by Universalists than these. They seem to rely 
upon them, with the greatest confidence, to prove their 
doctrine. On the will of God, see Sec. LXXXIV. 

10 



146 



TJnivers axism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



LVI. " Therefore leaving the principles of the doc- 
trine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection ; not laving 
again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and 
of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and 
of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, 
and of eternal judgment." Heb. vi, 1, 2. 

Mr. Bulkely, a Universalist, in discussion with Rev. 
E. Hutchins, is of the opinion that "the several doctrines 
enumerated were certain tenets of the Judaizing Chris- 
tians, that were not essential to Christianity." But the 
apostle explicitly tells us they were " the principles of the 
doctrine of Christ." Which shall we follow ? If Mr. B. is 
correct, then the " resurrection of the dead " is not essen- 
tial to Christianity, and if this is so, what becomes of Uni- 
veivalism ? In his zeal against eternal judgment he has 
discharged a gun which has mortally wounded himself. 
But says Mr. B., " There is only one place in the Script- 
ures where an eternal judgment is spoken of." Well, 
w r hat of that ? How many plain testimonies to a point 
are necessary before we are to believe what God says ? 
As an offset to this, we state that the expression, ;i all 
shall be holy and happy," does not occur even once in 
the Bible, and the phrase "destruction of Jerusalem " is 
not found in the New Testament. Dr. Clarke has doubt- 
less given the true sense of the expression " eternal judg- 
ment." " It is so called because the decisions of the 
judge will be irreversible and ever during, and not that 
he will be forever making that decision." Observe, the 
apostle in the order of his arrangement places the judg- 
ment after the resurrection, Avhich w r as in keeping wuth 
Jewish doctrines upon this subject. He wrote to the 
Hebrews, and as they would understand him so should 
we. These Christians are exhorted to leave these prin- 
ciples as the scholar leaves the elementary principles; 
not to abandon them as useless, but to go on to higher 
attainments, for so far are the elementary principles from 



SeC. 5 7.] UxiVERSALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 



147 



bein^ worthless, that, though he leaves them, they are 
of constant use to the scholar in making proficiency in 
the higher branches of knowledge. 

LVII. "For I ara now ready to be offered, and the 
time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good 
fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 
henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteous- 
ness which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me 
in that day," etc. 2 Tim. iv, 6-8. 

Of this striking passage the author of the "Guide" 
takes no notice. It is not found in his index. But Mr. 
Balfour has occupied no less than eleven pages of his 
"Essay," in which he has made his usual display of 
Greek criticism and Scripture references, to prove that 
Paul had his eye upon the destruction of Jerusalem 
when he addressed the above words to Timothy ! To 
state this to the honest reader of the Bible is to refute 
it. Paul did not live to see Jerusalem's destruction, for 
he died under Xero at least four years before; neither 
did he expect to, for he says, " The time of my depart- 
ure is at hand^ He stands, as it were, "between two 
worlds, and takes a pleasing retrospect of his Christian 
and ministerial fidelity. He then looks forward with 
eagerness to the judgment after death, where his fidel- 
ity would be rewarded with a crown of righteousness. 
Thus he connects the present with his future state, for 
it is death that he anticipates, and he is ready to be of- 
fered. How false the notion that our conduct here af- 
fects not our future condition. (Sec. XXVI.) 

Since writing the foregoing, a book has come to hand 
entitled "The Future Life," by J. Harris, containing, 
the last edition of the Universalist perversion of this 
text. Speaking of the crown upon which the apostle 
had his eye, he says : " We need not wonder that St. 
Paul should expect, after having fought his battles in 



148 TJniyersalism not of the Bible. [Part I ? 



the cause of Christ, to have his name written high on 
the records of the Church. 5 ' — P. 191. 

Posthumous honors, a great name in this world after 
death, then, was what the apostle aspired to. His am- 
bition " to have his name written high on the record of the 
Church" was what prompted him to sacrifice and suffer 
so much ; this was the crown of glory he had in view ! 
But this crown was not only for him, but for all those 
who " love His appearing." Hundreds of his fellow- 
Christians loved the appearing of Christ too, anrj. of 
course, were all entitled to a crown. But do all of their 
names appear high on the records of the Church ? But 
very few of them appear at all on the record. What 
an abominable perversion ! 

LVIII. "And as he reasoned of righteousness, tem- 
perance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled." Acts 
xxiv, 25. 

Upon this text Mr. Whittemore inquires, " Does the 
passage say this judgment was to come in the future 
state? No." What paltry quibbling this, well befit- 
ting the cause it is designed to support. So a future 
judgment is not meant in the text because the exact ex- 
pression, " future state" is not appended. Can Yn\ W. 
cite us to a passage in the Scriptures where it says, in 
so many words, that all. or even any, men shall be saved 
in the future state? No. Is there, therefore, no future 
salvation taught in the Bible ? Mr. W. fails to inform 
us what judgment is meant, but turns us over to Mr. 
Balfour. We take up Mr. B.'s " Essays " and find eight 
pages filled with his learned parade to show that Paul 
reasoned of the judgment about to come upon the Jew- 
ish nation. A sad announcement that to a Roman gov- 
ernor. Xo wonder that he trembled to hear that the 
enemies of Rome should be conquered, and their proud 



Sec. 59.] Uniyeesalism not of the Bible. 149 



city destroyed ! We leave the text with the common 
sense of the reader without farther remark. 

LIX. " Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness," 
etc. "For as many as have sinned without law, shall 
also perish without law ; and as many as have sinned 
in the law, shall be judged by the law — in the day when 
God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, ac- 
cording to my gospel.' 5 Rom. ii, 4-16. 

The falsity of referring this to the overthrow of the 
Jews, as Mr. AVhittemore has done, ("Guide " p. 179,) 
is apparent from the fact that this was addressed to 
converted Jews and Gentiles more than fifteen hundred 
miles from Jerusalem ; and, of course, Christians so re- 
mote could have but little to fear from its destruction. 
Paul speaks of a " day of wrath and revelation of the 
righteous judgment of God," (ver. 5,) which is not only 
general but particular. " To every man according to 
his deeds," to those Christians who continued in well 
doing, " eternal life." But to those who should aposta- 
tize, " who are contentious and obey not the truth, but 
obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribu- 
lation and anguish." Verses 8, 9. But what had Chris- 
tians at Rome to fear from the destruction of Jerusalem, 
even though they should apostatize and obey not the 
truth ? Or had they any thing to fear from the Roman 
government in case they renounced their Christian 
faith ? It would have been the most ready way to have 
secured its favor, as all know who are acquainted with 
the history of those times. The destruction of Jerusa- 
lem was a judgment upon the Jews, as Universalists 
assert. Now as if the apostle foresaw that some might 
pervert his words by applying them to the Jewish ca- 
lamity, he declares that the rendering of which he speaks 
should be made not only to the Jews, but "also to the 
Gentiles." Verses 9, 10. This thought itself shows 



150 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I. 



the glaring perversion of the passage by Universalists. 
In this day of judgment, those who had not the written 
law, heathens, are to be judged. Yerses 12-16. Bat 
heathens, as we have seen, were not judged at Jerusa- 
lem. The apostle is treating upon the same day of 
judgment he is*in chap, xiv, 10-12. (Sec. LXL) 

LX. " Some men's sins are open beforehand, going 
before to judgment; and some men they follow after." 
1 Tim. v, 24. 

Taking the position that no sinner is punished beyond 
this life for sins committed here, (Sec. CXL,) Universal- 
ists have never been able to meet the argument against 
that view, drawn from the fact that some die in the act 
of sinning. (Sec. XL VI.) To escape the difficulty, a flip- 
pant use is occasionally made of this text to give the im- 
pression that God can and does punish sin, sometimes, 
at least, before it is committed. We shall now show 
the unsoundness of this position. If God punishes sin 
before it is committed, then the divine administration 
becomes indebted to the sinner, and he has the right, 
and can demand the privilege, of sinning as much as he 
has been punished for. There is no evading this, if jus- 
tice is connected with the divine administration. Now 
as this involves an absurdity not to be conceived of in 
the administration of a wise and holy God, the doctrine 
which produces such a conclusion must be false. Every 
discerning mind must see that such a view is contrary 
to all just conceptions of human or divine law, and that 
none but those who are hard pushed with truth will 
have recourse to so miserable a subterfuge. 

Again : We are frequently told that there is no future 
punishment, because punishment is consequential and is 
inseparable from sin. But if sin is prepunished, then is 
the punishment separate from the sin, which contradicts 
a very essential doctrine of American Universalism. 



Sec. 60.] Uxiveesalism xot or the Bible. 



151 



We are told of the hell of conscience. But how can 
men suffer in their consciences for sins not committed, 
and of which they can have no conceptions? The pas- 
sage at the head of this has no reference whatever to the 
infliction of God's penalties upon sinners. Paul is 
giving direction respecting appointing men to the 
sacred office of the ministry, and says, verse 22 : "Lay 
hands suddenly on no man, neither he partaker of other 
men's sins," that is, by inducting improper men into the 
sacred office. He then says, verse 24 : " Some men's 
sins are open beforehand," etc. Upon this Dr. Clarke 
gives the following: "In appointing men to sacred 
offices in the Church, among the candidates Timothy 
would find — 

" 1. Some of whom he knew nothing, but only that 
they professed Christianity. Let such be tried before 
they are appointed. 

" 2. Some of whose faith and piety he had the fullest 
knowledge, and whose usefulness in the Church was 
well known. 

" 3. Some whose lives were not all, or but partially, 
reformed ; who were still unchanged in their hearts, 
and unholy in their lives. 

u The sins of these latter were known to all ; they go 
before to judgment ; with them he could have no diffi- 
culty; there might have been hypocrites among them, 
whose sins could not be known till after they were 
brought into the sacred office. The characters of all 
should be fully investigated. The sins of some, before 
this investigation, might be so manifest as to lead at 
once to condemnation. The sins of others might be 
found out after, or in consequence of, this investigation ; 
and those that were otherwise could not be long hid 
from his knowledge, or the knowledge of the Church. 
On all these accounts the exhortation is necessary, 
'Lay hands suddenly on no man.' " 



152 



UxiYEESALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 



[Part I, 



LXI. " Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and 
given him a name which is above every name : that at 
the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in 
heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth ; 
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ 
is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil, ii, 9-11 ; 
Rom. xiv, 10-12 ; Isa. xlv, 23-25. 

This text seems to be relied on with the greatest con- 
fidence to prove Universalism. But why do those who 
use it give us no light on its parallel, found Rom. xiv, 
10-12 ? It reads thus : " But why dost thou judge thy 
brother? or why dost thou set at naught thy brother? 
for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee 
shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God. 
So then every one of us shall give an account of him- 
self to God." These texts are quotations of Isa. xlv, 
23-25. "I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out 
of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, 
That unto me every knee shall how, every tongue shall 
swear. Surely shall one say, in the Lord have I right- 
eousness and strength; eve?i to him shall men come; 
and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. 
In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and 
shall glory." The passage in Romans is a more full 
quotation of the prophet than the one in Philippians, as 
the following comparison will show : 



Isaiah. 

"I have sworn by 
myself/ ' 

" Every knee shall 
bow." 

" Every tongue shall 
swear." 

"Even to him shall 
men come." 



Romans. 

" As I live saith the 
Lord." 

" Every knee shall 
bow." 

"Every tongue shall 
confess." 

"For we must all 
appear before the judg- 
ment seat of Christ." 



Philippians. 



" Every knee shall 
bow." 

" Every tongue shall 

confess," 



Sec. 61.] Uniyersalism not of the Bible. 



153 



We examine four volumes of Universalis! books, each 
with a copious index of texts ; but they furnish no light 
upon the passage in Romans, whi^e the passage in Phi- 
lippians is never omitted. We take up the " Guide," 
look at the index, and are referred to p. 186 ; turn to it, 
and are put off with the author's sophistry on 2 Cor. v, 
10. ISTow, why this concealment of the passage in 
Romans ? It is doubtless seen by these men that if it 
is brought out in connection with its parallel in Philip- 
pians it will destroy all their capital by teaching a 
future judgment. TTniversalist writers unhesitatingly 
refer the passage in Philippians to the future state, for 
it is in the resurrection state that all, as they say, are 
to be saved. We also admit its future state reference. 
But it bears no mark of a future reference that the text 
in Romans does not. TTniversalist reader, be honest 
with yourself in this business. Remember that there is 
a reason why the leaders in your order maintain a dead 
silence respecting the last named text. They have 
labored to make you believe in no future judgment ; 
and then that Isa. xlv, 23-25, and Phil, ii, 9-11 teach 
the salvation of all in the future world. But the truth 
is, Isa. xlv, 23-25, Rom. xiv, 10-12, and Phil, ii, 9-11 
are co-relative passages, and if one is referable to a 
future state, all are, and then the judgment seat of 
Christ is in the future state / while, on the other hand, if 
the judgment named is referable to Jerusalem's destruc- 
tion, or any calamity in this world, the bowing and con- 
fessing named is confined to this world, and the pas- 
sages in Isaiah and Philippians can no longer be pressed 
into the service of Universalism. Paul says in Romans, 
" We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." 
Question : How do you know this, Paul ? Answer : 
"It is written, (Isa. xlv, 23,) As I live, saith the Lord, 
every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall 
eonfess to God." So, then, every one of us shall give an 



154 



UlsIYERSALISM JSTOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



account of himself to God. Thus the apostle quotes 
Isaiah in proof of a future judgment. As this may 
meet the eye of one of the few, who, like Murray, admit 
of a future judgment, but conclude that universal salva- 
tion is indicated at that time, a few thoughts will now 
be offered upon some points relied upon. Stress has 
been laid upon the universality of the language " every 
knee shall bow," etc. That all shall bow to Christ's 
authority in the judgment we believe, whether willing 
or not; but it by no means follows that all shall be 
saved. But it is said, Isa. xlv, 24, " Every tongue shall 
swear." Some have concluded from this that all will 
swear allegiance to Christ and yield him a willing 
obedience; but this is all assumption. It is worthy of 
remark, that for the word sicear, Paul substitutes the 
word confess in both of his quotations. All in the day 
of judgment will confess Christ's Lordship and the jus- 
tice of his decisions to the glory of God the Father, 
who hath submitted to him this judgment. They will 
also confess their course of life to him. " So then every 
one of us shall give an account of himself to God." 
The devil once confessed Christ, (Mark i, 24;) but this 
was no evidence of his holiness and happiness. " All 
that are incensed against him shall be ashamed." May 
not wicked persons be ashamed of conduct they still 
persist in ? " In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be 
justified, and shall glory." Universalism says, " In the 
Lord shall all the human race be justified, and shall 
glory." The prophet contradicts this by confirming 
the blessings to "the seed of Israel." If reference is 
had to the natural descendants of Israel, then all men 
are not included ; and if to his spiritual seed, which is 
doubtless the fact, then all are not embraced, but only 
believers in Christ. Rom. ix, 6 ; Gal. iii, 7, 29. Instead 
of universal salvation, a universal judgment is taught, 
when all shall be obliged to confess the justness of its 



Sec. 62.] Univeesausm not of the Bible. 



155 



decisions to the glory of God the Father. But how 
can it be for the glory of the Father if all are not 
saved? We answer: In the same way that an earthly 
government is glorified by the righteous decision of its 
courts, and the just execution of its penalties. 

One thought more. Universalists sometimes tell us 
that the change by which all are to be saved will take 
place "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye;" that 
" there will be no condition for man in the future state 
but that in which he will be as the angels of God in 
heaven." — Balfour's Essay r , p. 192 ; Trumpet, Xo. 679. 
Yet by the use they make of two of the foregoing pas- 
sages they teach us that men in the future state will 
bow the knee, swear allegiance, be incensed, be ashamed, 
etc., etc. The reader must reconcile these as he best 
can. On confessing at the judgment, see a quotation 
from Josephus, in Sec. XLI. 

LXn. "For all shall know me from the least of 
them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord." Jer. 
xxxi, 33, 34. 

In this chapter the prophet is speaking of the superior 
advantages of the Christian dispensation over the Jew- 
ish, and of the spiritual blessings secured by the new 
covenant. See context, also Hebrews viii. It will be 
perceived that the word aU occurs in the text, and this 
is enough for Universalist expounders to seize it, and 
declare that it teaches the salvation of all men in eter- 
nity ! " In regard to the future condition of mankind, 
the Bible declares explicitly that all shall ultimately 
know God, 'from the least to the greatest.' Jer. 
xxxi, 34." — Guide, p. 270. This is a perversion. The 
covenant is not made with all men^huX with " the house 
of Israel," v. 33, and the prosperous state of things 
named is not predicated of all men in eternity, but of 
the seed of Israel in this world, where it is possible 



156 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



for theru to " cease to he a nation before the Lord," 
v. 36. The triumphs of Christianity are predicted 
here in the world, and God's true Israel will enjoy 
the blessings named. Rom. ii, 29; John i, 47; Rom. 
ix, 6. 

LXIII. "But the way of transgressors is hard." 
Prov. xiii, 15. 

Often has it been proclaimed that the teachings of 
Christian ministers tend to immorality, because they in- 
struct the people that sin is pleasurable, and thus lead 
men to seek pleasure in sin; while Universalist minis- 
ters are the only true reformers, because they teach that 
the way of transgressors is hard. The manner in which 
this is often done amounts to a gross libel on Christian 
ministers, as their constant hearers know full well. 
(Sec. XL VI.) The Gospel minister has at his command 
all the motives a Universalist can possibly urge drawn 
from the effects of sin in this life, and in addition to 
these he has the powerful motive to urge of the fearful 
retributions of eternity. But while he shows the effects 
of sin upon the sinner here, and that on a comparative 
view there is no true and lasting peace to the wicked, 
he feels not at liberty to proclaim that there is abso- 
lutely no pleasure in sin — for this would not only con- 
tradict the Bible, but the experience of every sinner; 
hence he points out sinful pleasures, exposes their delu- 
sive character and ruinous effects, and labors to dis- 
suade all, and especially the young, from following 
them. The man of observation, acquainted with his 
Bible and capable of reflection, knows that in man's de- 
praved state there are many sins committed for the 
sake of the sensual pleasure derived from the act. If 
Universalist s choose to take the position that there is 
no pleasure in sin, why, then they are only at their old 
business — arraying themselves against common sense 



Sec. G-L] Uxiveesalism not of the Bible. 



157 



and the Bible. See Heb. xi, 25 ; 2 Thess. ii, 12 ; Pro v. 
iv ? 16. 

We subjoin the following from the pen of another: 
" Those who believe in future and eternal judgment re- 
gard the ways of the transgressor as hard indeed, in- 
volved as those ways are in darkness here, and termi- 
nating as they do in 'everlasting destruction from the 
presence of the Lord, and the glory of his power.' But 
if Universalism be true, the ways of the transgressor are 
not so very hard ; they are quite tolerable. A Uni- 
versalist conscience, benumbed with fatality and seared 
with guilt, and case-hardened by an almost total absence 
of a sense of accountability, cannot be supposed to give 
the transgressor a very serious annoyance in his ways, 
especially if he be strong in the faith that a life of pleas- 
ure, infamy, and guilt will inevitably terminate in glory. 
It will be a hard task to persuade such a one that ' all 
is {not) well that ends well.' " — Russell. 

LXIV. " Concerning this sect, we know that every- 
where it is spoken against." Acts xxviii, 22. 

The primitive Church, in its purity, met with general 
opposition from wicked men ; and Universalists, because 
their system is extensively opposed by good men, labor 
to make the impression that they are the only true suc- 
cessors of the apostolic Church ! To effect this they 
avail themselves of this text. Universalism is exten- 
sively opposed, not by the wicked, for it meets their de- 
sires, and administers to them an opiate; but by Chris- 
tians generally. And is the opposition of the mass of 
enlightened Christians, many of them possessing the 
best heads and hearts the world has ever seen, to be 
taken as evidence of the purity and truthfulness of that 
which they oppose ? While it is true, as a general 
thing, that the wicked do oppose that which is religious- 
ly good, it is also true that we are not safe in consider- 



153 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



ing a thing good merely because it is extensively op- 
posed, even by wicked men. Look at the Mormon de- 
lusion. Sure we are that no sect in our country, in the 
nineteenth century at least, has suffered more by perse- 
cution from wicked men than the Mormons. But is 
this to be taken as evidence of the purity of their lives, 
and the truthfulness of their system? Universalists 
have never suffered a tithe of persecution compared 
with the followers of Joe Smith ; neither have they suf- 
fered anything compared with the Baptists, Puritans, 
and Methodists. These have all seen the time when 
each could say, " We are the sect every- where spoken 
against." Indeed, so far are TJniversalists from being 
the persecuted, that they have persecuted others. 
(Sec. CVIIT.) Reader, when you hear a zealous dis- 
ciple claiming apostolic succession for Universalism 
from this text, just ask him if the Mormons have not a 
claim equally good. 

LXV. " And being made perfect, he became the au- 
thor of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." 
Heb. v, 9. 

Does this text sound like Universalism? That de- 
clares that all shall have eternal salvation, whether they 
obey Christ or not. But the apostle, speaking of moral 
agents under the Gospel, confines this salvation to such 
as obey Christ. Which shall we follow, Universalism 
or the Bible ? And then, again, Universalists deny that 
Christ is the author of future salvation. He came not 
to provide it, but to proclaim it, is the doctrine. See 
Sec. XXIX. 

LXYI. iC For if we sin wilfully, after that we have 
received the knowledge of the truth," etc. Heb. 
x, 26-31. 

This passage evidently teaches the doctrine of future 



Sec. 66.] Universalism not of the Bible. 159 



retribution. Death without mercy can be considered in 
no other light than the severest of temporal punish- 
ments. But the text threatens a sorer punishment even 
than " death without mercy." What will TTniversalists 
do with this ? Do with it ? Why, throw it into Jeru- 
salem's destruction, the common receptacle of all stub- 
born texts. " Guide," p. 104. How absurd ! What evi 
dence had the apostle that all or any of the Christians 
who might apostatize then, should live and be present 
to suffer by the Romans at Jerusalem ? Just none at 
all. This epistle bears date A.D. 64, six years before 
Titus came against the Jews, and was addressed to 
Hebrew Christians who w T ere scattered all over the 
Roman Empire. And then he does that which is a 
great abomination in the eyes of Universalist divines, 
for he appeals to the fears of Christians to save them 
from apostasy. Hear him. " For we know Him that 
hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recom- 
pense, saith the Lord." So there is something in the 
Divine administration called Vexgeaxce. How unlike 
Universalist teachings is this ! What would be thought 
of a preacher of that order w r ho should urge the venge- 
ance of God as a motive to move his hearers ? (Sec. 
LXIX.) And how long would his people employ him 
as their teacher ? Again, " It is a fearful thing to fall 
into the hands of the living God," v. 31. But why a 
fearful thing if "a just punishment is as essential for 
our welfare as any thing that love can do ? " Why 
should the most vile apostate of our race fear to fall 
into the hands of the living God if all are to be taken 
to heaven, irrespective of character here ? Paul, in the 
passage, shows the possibility and awful consequences 
of apostasy, and solemnly appeals to their fears respect- 
ing the future ; after which he appeals to their hopes 
and consciousness concerning the faithful Christian's 
reward in heaven. He reminds them of their former 



160 



Universalism tstot of the Bible. [Part I, 



sufferings and sacrifices, and says : " For ye had com- 
passion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully of the 
spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye 
have in heaven a better and enduring substance. Cast 
not away, therefore, your confidence, which hath great 
recompense of reward. For ye have need of patience ; 
that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might re- 
ceive the promise," verses 34, 35, 36. Here it will be 
seen that heaven, with its better and enduring substance, 
is presented as the result of their Christian fidelity. 
Read the chapter from v. 24 to v. 36, and it will be 
seen that it lies with mighty weight against more points 
than one of modern Universalism. 

LXVII. " For as the rain coraeth down, and the snow 
from heaven, and returneth not thither," etc. Isa. lv, 
10, 11. 

In their very frequent use of this passage, Universal- 
ists always assume the very point in debate, namely, 
that it is the pleasure or purpose of God to save all men 
unconditionally in the future state. This we deny, for 
whatever the work to be accomplished by this a word," 
or wherever done, one thing is evident, which is, that its 
benefits are only to be received upon conditions. This 
is clear, not only from the context, (verses 6, 7,) but 
from the figure employed in the passage. Observe, it 
is " as the rain," " so shall my word be." Is it the pur- 
pose of God, in sending the rain, to give the fruits of 
the earth to all men whether they till it or not ? By 
no means. But it is to " give seed to the sower" etc. 
There is no need of enlargement here. But what is 
God's word here spoken of, and is it to accomplish the 
salvation of all men in the future state, according to 
Universalist expositions of Scripture ? God's word men-' 
tioned in this passage, says Mr. Whittemore, is the Gos- 
pel. " Guide," p. 40. Well, what is the Gospel ? It is 



Sec. 67.] UXIVEESALTSM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 



161 



not the salvation of all men in the future state, but is 
simply the good news or glad tidings which announces 
the fact that all will be saved. So say Universalists. 
The Gospel, according to their notions, is perfectly inde- 
pendent of the salvation of men in the future state, just 
as much so as announcing the fact that there is such a 
place as London is independent of that fact. It is con- 
tended that Gospel salvation is the effects experienced 
in this life of believing the doctrine that all will be saved 
hereafter, and that preaching, receiving, or rejecting the 
Gospel will not affect our future salvation in the least. 
Mr. Whittemore ridicules the idea of man's conduct 
being recompensed in a future state, and says it ,( is alike 
reasonable with saying that a man who sows a field of 
grain in Massachusetts shall reap the harvest from it in 
the State of Ohio." — Trumpet^ No. 635. By the way, 
we suppose it is very reasonable to him for a man to 
sow a field of grain and reap the crop just as quick as 
he has sown it ! In other words, it is quite clear to him 
that men are punished for their sins as soon as they com- 
mit them. (Sec. XLIX.) 

From the preceding we learn as follows : 

1. The word that goeth forth, and is to accomplish 
that which the Almighty pleases, is the Gospel ; that is, 
the good news of the salvation of all men in the future state. 

2. This Gospel, or good news, is independent of what 
it declares, and does not in the least affect the future 
condition of any man, as all will be saved in the future 
state, whether they hear the good news in this life or 
not. It is seen, then, that, according to Mr. Whitte- 
more's own showing, the declared prosperity of the word 
or Gospel named in the passage does not secure the 
salvation of all or any men in the future state. Yet, 
when it will serve his purpose, he can give it a future- 
state reference, and use it to prove Universalism, as he 
has done on pr>« 29 and 40 of his " Guide." And thus 

11 



162 



UNIVERSALIS}! NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



the Scriptures are perverted, and the people deceived. 
If there is a jingle of words; if, perchance, there is uni- 
versal language in a passage — no matter what it was de- 
signed to teach or what its connection, no matter whether 
it is spoken of the Jewish nation, or of the spread of the 
Gospel in this world, or of Christians only — it is taken 
and connected, perhaps, with one or two other texts 
equally perverted, and thus a Universalist argument is 
made. In proof of this see Mr. "Whittemore's " One 
Hundred Arguments," which are wholly made up of 
mangled and perverted texts. 

The design to be accomplished by this word is seen in 
the commission given by Christ himself to preach it, 
which is as follows : c< Go ye into all the world, and 
preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth, 
and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth 
not, shall be damned." Mark xvi, 15, 16. 

LXVHI "What shall I do to inherit eternal life ?" 
Luke xviii, 18. 

The phrase in our translation rendered eternal life oc- 
curs twenty-seven times in the Xew Testament, and the 
phrase rendered everlasting life occurs thirteen times, 
making in all forty times, all of which, according to 
Universalist writers, mean something experienced in this 
world. Mr. Whittemore says : 

" Notwithstanding the 6 everlasting life ' spoken of in 
the Xew Testament is applied in these pages to that 
state of rest, purity, and joy into which believers of the 
Gospel entered whenever they embraced it, the author 
takes this opportunity to say that he undoubtingly be- 
lieves that a future state of immortality and incorrnption 
is revealed in the Xew Testament. This, like the pres- 
ent existence, will be the gift of God, and cannot in the 
nature of things, as seems to us, be affected by the con- 
duct of men in this life." — Notes on Par., p. 354. 



Sec. 08.] 



UXIYEESALIS^I XOT OF THE BlBLE. 



163 



Here it would seem that Mr. Whittemore is almost 
startled at his own sentiments, and lest he should be 
thought an infidel downright, he is under the necessity, 
at the close of his book, of informing his readers that 
he believes that a future state is taught in the Xew Tes- 
tament ! Again he says : 

u What is meant by eternal life ? This phrase is not 
used by the sacred writers to signify endless blessedness 
beyond the grave, but that state of spiritual life and 
peace which was the immediate effects of faith in the 
Gospel of Jesus Christ." — Guide, p. 140. 

The question may arise in the reader's mind, Why is 
it that Universal ists should desire to destroy the future- 
state reference of this phrase ? It is because it stands 
in such connections in the Bible that if it is admitted 
to mean a state of bliss it confirms, by parity of reason, 
the doctrine of future punishment. 

Notwithstanding Mr. Whittemore, in the " Guide," 
denies the future-state reference of the expression "eter- 
nal life," yet such is the twistical character of the man 
upon this subject that he can, in this same " Guide," 
use this same phrase, " eternal life," four times to teach 
the salvation of all men in the future state ! See 
" Guide," pp. 25, 45, 46, 52. How long would these 
men be troubled with the Bible at all were they left to 
themselves, and the world sufficiently prepared for them 
to destroy it, and substitute one of their own inventing? 

All true believers possess the seminal principles of a 
future blissful life in this world ; and in view of it the in- 
spired penmen use the phrase " everlasting life," in a few 
instances, in this sense, as in John v, 24, " He that hear- 
eth my words, and believeth on him that sent me, hath 
everlasting life;" also John vi, 47, and a few other 
places. Universalists seize hold of these, and claim the 
right to interpret all the rest of the passages where the 
expression occurs by them, and thus deceive the people. 



164 



Universalis^! xot of the Bible. [Part I, 



The truth is, the phrase, primarily and properly, means 
a life of bliss beyond this. This is evident, 

1. From Jewish belief. In 2 Mace, vii, 9, a Jew 
who was put to death for refusing to eat swine's flesh 
says to his murderer, " Thou, like a fury, takest us out 
of this present life, but the King of the world shall 
raise us up, who have died for his laws, unto everlasting 
life." We bring this simply as historical evidence of 
what the Jews believed respecting everlasting or 
eternal life. It bears date B. C. 167. Again, Josephus 
in his Discourse on Hades, speaking of the intermediate 
state, gives the following as the belief of Jews: " But 
the countenance of the fathers, and of the just which 
they see, always smiles upon them, while they wait for 
that rest, and eternal new life in heaven, which is to 
succeed this region." Xow in the light of this belief 
of the Jews, let us look at the case of the young ruler. 
He, being an educated Jew, well understood Jewish 
theology. His question is, " What shall I do to inherit 
eternal life?" The Saviour answers, and adds, "and 
thou shalt have treasure in heaven." This answer 
shows most conclusively that the Saviour understood 
him to be anxious about his future state, and that 
" treasure in heaven " is synonymous with " eternal 
life." 

That eternal life properly means a life beyond this 
is evident, 

2. From the absurdities invoked, by the Universcdist 
interpretation of the phrase. Let us take two or three 
of these illustrations : Matt, xxv, 46, " But the right- 
eous iuto life eternal." This, we are told, " is that spir- 
itual life which the believer enjoys in this state." — 
Notes on Par., p. 353. Xow the righteous must be 
already spiritually alive, or else they are not righteous. 
This interpretation, then, represents the judge as send- 
ing the spiritually alive into spiritual life, which is 



Sec. 68.] Uniyeksalism not of the Bible. 



165 



manifestly absurd ; therefore, cannot be the true inter- 
pretation. John xii, 25, "He that loveth his life shall 
lose it, and he that hateth his life in this world shall 
keep it unto life eternal." Life eternal, in this text, is 
contrasted with life in this world. Just confine the 
meaning of "life eternal" to this world and the pas- 
sage is reduced to this absurdity : He that hateth his 
life in this world shall keep it, by gaining, by the loss 
of his life, that eternal life which is enjoyed in this 
world. Or, in other words, after he is dead he shall 
come back and enjoy spiritual life in this world ! Is it 
said that the expression " this world " means " this 
age," before the destruction of Jerusalem? Then we 
may read it thus : He that dies before the destruction 
of Jerusalem shall have eternal life by living through 
that destruction ! But the word rendered world here 
is not aion, which in some instances means " age," 
but kosmos, the most appropriate word for world. 
(Sec. XI.) 

The more the reader thinks upon this passage, the 
more will he see the violent wresting and absurdity of 
those who confine the phrase " eternal life " to the spir- 
itual life the believer enjoys in this world. Take one 
text more : Titus i, 2, " In hope of eternal life, which 
God that cannot lie," etc. Here Paul represents him- 
self as hoping for eternal life. Hope respects the future. 
Paul was a holy Christian, and of course already spirit- 
ually aiive. Now if eternal life means spiritual life in 
this world, then the hope of Paul implies that he was 
destitute of spiritual life, for what a man has in his 
possession he does not hope for. Was Paul desti- 
tute of spiritual life at this time? Was he a wicked 
man ? 

We here present the reader with an entire argument 
from Mr. Whittemore, in which he gives the expression 
" eternal life " a future-state reference, the very thing 



166 TTniversaj/ism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



he denies on page 140 of the same book. He says, 
"The record which God hath given of his Son is this: 
c That God hath given to us eternal life ; and this life 
is his Son.' 1 John v, 11. Is this record true? It 
surely is. Who are called on to believe it ? All man- 
kind. If any man believes it not, he makes God a liar, 
by saying that God's record is not true. God, then, 
hath certainly given eternal life to all men in his divine 
purpose." — Guide, p. 53. This is one of Mr. W.'s One 
Hundred Arguments to prove Universalism, that is, the 
salvation of all men in the future state ; and thus he 
gives the phrase eternal life a future reference. Which 
is to be believed, Mr. W. on page 52, or Mr. W. on 
page 140 of the same book ? If he is correct on page 
140, and has proved any thing by the argument, it is 
this: That God hath certainly given in his divine pur- 
pose, to all mankind, that spiritual life and peace which 
faith in the Gospel imparts in this world ! As matter 
of fact shows that this has not been accomplished, 
neither can it be, it is hoped we shall hear no more 
from the author of the " Guide " about the absolute 
character of the divine purposes. Bu£ suppose that all 
the race of Adam were in possession of the spiritual life 
and peace the Gospel imparts in this world, would that 
secure them bliss in eternity? By no means, according 
to this author ; for, as we have seen, in speaking of the 
eternal state he says, it " cannot in the nature of things, 
as seems to us, be affected by the conduct of men in 
this life." Beware, reader, how you follow such a 
crooked Guide. In the text pressed into th's argument 
the apostle says, "God hath given to us eternal life." 
This is spoken of believers, and not of all men, as may 
be seen by verse 13. See also John iii, 15. 

LXTX. " Fear not, little flock ; for it is your Father's 
good pleasure to give you the kingdom." Luke xii, 32. 



Sec. 69.] Univeesaltsm not of the Bible. 167 



Mr. A. B. Grosh, a great man, an editor and minister 
in the Universalist order, uses this text, in connection 
with several others where the expression u fear not " is 
found, to show that men are not to be moved by fear 
" to repent and obey the commands of God." Of the 
Gospel he says, "It makes its first advances to the 
world of sinners by exhorting them to u fear not" To 
substantiate this, and to show that none have any thing 
to fear, he quotes the expression as found in the address to 
the shepherds, Luke ii, 10 ; to Mary, Luke i, 30 ; to Zach- 
arias, Luke i, 13 ; to Simon, Luke v, 10 ; to the disciples, 
Luke xii, 32 ; also verse 1 ; to the women who sought 
the Lord at the sepulcher, Matt, xxviii, 5 ; and also 
what the Saviour says to John, (Rev. i, 17,) " Fear not; 
I am the first and the last," etc. He will have it that 
those who teach that wicked men ought to fear in view 
of God's penalties are opposed to Christ, who said, 
" fear not ; " and says, " but the wisdom of this world 
has mingled its own inventions with the wisdom from 
on high, and fear,/6ar, fear, is the grand instrument of 
convicting sinners, of converting them to the Church, 
of confirming them in the faith, and of keeping them 
steadfast unto the end of their professions. Fear of an 
endless hell — fear of an almost almighty fiend — fear of 
the censures of the world and of the anathemas of the 
Church — these are the motives principally appealed to 
in our days to make and keep people religious," p, 52. 
With this kind of cant do the advocates of Universaiism 
labor to bring into contempt the faithful teachings of 
Christian ministers. 

Taking into account the obvious design of the writei, 
it stands thus : The Scriptures enjoin upon certain per- 
sons, respecting some particular subjects, the duty to 
" fear not ; " therefore all wicked or ungodly men have 
nothing to fear, and no appeal should be made to their 
fears to deter them from sin ! But where, we ask, is ix, 



168 



Univeesalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



to be found in the Bible that wicked men, while con- 
tinuing in their sins, have nothing to fear? Has God 
ever said to such, " fear not ? " Christians are com- 
plained of because they would have men fear " an end- 
less hell." To this we plead guilty, but find ourselves 
in honorable company. Christ said to the wicked, " Ye 
serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the 
damnation of hell.' 3 Matt, xxiii, 33. Here is an appeal 
direct to the fears upon this point by the Son of God 
himself. Hear him again: "He that blasphemeth 
against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is 
in danger of eternal damnation/' Mark iii, 29. Ts there 
nothing to be feared from eternal damnation? This, 
being addressed to Jews, must have been understood 
by them to mean just what it seems to mean, for they 
believed in eternal damnation. But men are made to 
fear " an almost almighty fiend." That Gospel minis- 
ters strive to impress men with a sense of their danger 
from the temptations of the devil, is true ; and that 
there is such a being, with subordinates, may be seen 
by turning to Sec. XCVII. They are made to fear 
"the censures of the world." This is false, as all know 
who sit under the Christian ministry. With great 
unanimity they urge their hearers to embrace Christ, re- 
gardless alike of the frowns and flatteries of the world. 
Fear of "the anathemas of the Church." That Chris- 
tians are instructed by their teachers to fear to violate 
their voluntary obligations to the Church, we admit. 
Since Universalists now form some associations they 
call Churches, what do they teach concerning such obli- 
gations? Do they teach their members to " fear not " 
to violate ? It is complained that fear is the grand 
insirument in "keeping them steadfast unto the end." 
That the fears of Christians are appealed to frequently 
in the Bible is most obvious. When the sinner em 
braces the Gospel he is not freed from the law as a 



SeC. 69.] TJXIYEKSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 169 



rule of life, but strength is imparted by the Gospel to 
assist the better to keep the law. Every law for the 
regulation of human conduct has a penalty ; for to talk 
of law without a penalty is a solecism. Every penalty 
is an appeal to the fears of those who are bound to 
obey ; and although the Christian is delivered from the 
fear of the penalty for sins that are past, by his justifi- 
cation, yet he is to fear to violate the law in future lest 
the apostate's hell be his doom. Hence the propriety 
of appealing to the fears, not only of unrenewed per- 
sons, but of Christians. Says Paul, "Let us therefore 
fear, lest a promise being left us of entering into his 
rest, any of you should seem to come short of it." Heb. 
iv, 1. This was addressed to Christians. The Saviour 
enjoins fear upon his disciples. " Fear not them which 
kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul ; but 
rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and 
body in hell." Matt, x, 28. See also Heb. x, 26-31. 
We should be obliged to transcribe no small portion of 
the Bible were we to present all the passages where 
the fears of the wicked are appealed to, and where fear 
is enjoined as a Christian duty. Yet Universalism 
stands up in the face of all this and cries " Fear not ! " 
We must admit, however, that at least in this it is con- 
sistent with itself; for if "ail the judgment of which 
the Scriptures speak are to destroy sin and reform the 
sinner," and if " no more punishment will be inflicted 
than the good of the sinner requires," (" IT. 111. and Def. 3 " 
pp. 248, 195,) why should any, enlightened by the 
luminous rays of Universalism, ever fear the penalty of 
God's law ? What should we think of a dying man 
who should fear to take a medicine he knew would cure 
him even though it were somewhat disagreeable ? We 
say, then, that Universalism is consistent with itself 
upon this point ; but this very consistency deprives it 
of the character of a Christian system, inasmuch as it is 



170 



Univeesalism not or the Bible. [Part I, 



directly at war with the clear and evident teachings of 
the Bible. The faithful minister uses fear as a motive, 
because the Bible presents it as such : but it is not the 
only motive with him. He urges the love of God as 
developed in the gift of his Son, and the Gospel provis- 
ions. He urges the goodness of God as seen in his 
mercy toward sinners, and in his long suffering— b ear- 
ing with sinners long when they deserve punishment. 
But he appeals to the fears of men concerning the neg- 
lect and abuse of these blessings, and the danger conse- 
quent upon such a course. Noah was moved by fear to 
build the ark, (Heb. xi, 7 ;) and Christ, as we have seen, 
inculcates the same principle upon his disciples. The 
love or goodness of God, it is admitted, is the most 
noble principle; yet, when we consider the fallen nature 
of man, and the circumstances in which he is placed, 
fear will be seen to be equally necessary. The truth is, 
God's government is a reign of terror to the finally im- 
penitent, and this by Paul is urged as a motive against 
sin. " Knowing, therefore, the terrors of the Lord, we 
persuade men." 2 Cor. v, 11. 

" It is a question of vast importance, and which I fear 
ministers in general do not sufficiently attend to, 
whether the love or the terror of God operates most 
powerfully at first on the minds of sinners. If they 
were governed by their reason, there would be no neces- 
sity to preach the terror of the Lord to them ; because, 
as soon as they perceived that their interest and duty are 
united, they would begin to promote the one by the 
practice of the other : but he must have a superficial ac- 
quaintance with men who does not know that in general 
they are governed by their corrupt passions and appetites, 
in opposition to the dictates of reason and religion. The 
privileges of religion will never operate as a motive on 
corrupt minds to practice its duties. Tell them about 
the comforts of the Spirit ; the sweet communion with 



Sec. 70.] Univeksalism ^ot of the Bible. 



171 



God in religious exercises ; and the happiness of heaven, 
as consisting in the vision of God, and the society of 
saints, angels, and Jesus Christ ; in investigating the 
works and ways of God; singing his praises; in loving 
and serving him for evermore — I say, tell them of these 
things; but, since they have no disposition to enjoy 
them, they will express no desire after them. You 
might as well cast pearls before swine. The temper of 
their minds must be changed before such motives will 
have any influence upon them. Should a minister neg- 
lect to address the passion of fear, by leaving out the 
terror of the Lord, he may preach the love of God, the 
joys of heaven, moral virtue, or what he pleases, till his 
tongue cleave to the roof of his mouth, without convert- 
ing one sinner from the error of his way ."—Isaac. 

LXX. " Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy ; 
for thou renderest unto every man according to his 
work." Psa. lxii, 12. 

In view of the connection, the sense of the text is this : 
Mercy is attributed to God, because he would deliver 
his people and destroy their enemies, (v. 3-8 ;) while the 
obstinately wicked, who delight in lies, (v. 4,) trust in 
oppression, and become vain in robbery, (v. 10,) shall 
be rewarded according to their works. This Scripture is 
often perverted to show that all punishment is for the 
good of the sinner, and that men shall be punished all 
their sins deserve, whether they repent or not. That 
every man suffers the full penalty for all the sins he com- 
mits, may be considered a cardinal doctrine with Ameri- 
can Universalists. " Every man shall suffer to the full 
extent of his deserts. There is no remission of punisk- 
ment, either on account of the Saviour's death, or the 
sinner's penitence." — IT. III. & Def., p. 249. Quotations 
might be given harmonizing with this, from most of 
their leading writers. In order to sustain this false posi- 



172 Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



tion, they are driven to another, namely, that the sinner 
may be fully punished and still forgiven. Says Skinner : 
a The common opinion that forgiveness is a remission of 
punishment, is altogether incorrect. We can be justly 
punished and still forgiven." — U. 111. <& Def., pp. 250, 
254. Says Fernald, speaking of the Bible: "It never 
teaches the forgiveness or remission of jnmishjnent for 
sins committed. It is the forgiveness of sins ; by which 
is understood the blotting out, or cleansing from, after 
clue justice is administered" — U. against Part., p. 259. 
Says Sawyer : " Christ came to save me from deserving 
punishment, rather than from punishment deserved." — 
Letter to Remington, p. 49. Another doctrine which 
Mr. Whittemore asserts to be denominational is, that 
the punishment of sin is executed as soon as it is com- 
mitted, or that sin punishes itself immediately. (Sec. 
XL1X.) 

See also section CXL, where the iwesent form of Uni- 
versalism is given from its Sunday-school literature. 

Now just compare these sentiments with the language 
of Paul : " And be ye kind, one to another, tender- 
hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's 
sake hath forgiven you." Eph. iv. 32. Again : " Forbear- 
ing one another, and forgiving one another; if any 
man have a quarrel against any, even as Christ forgave 
you, so also do ye." Col. iii, 13. In these Scriptures is 
taught most clearly that we are to forgive injuries in the 
same sense that God forgives sinners. Now, if all sin is 
punished without delay, and if by Gospel forgiveness 
none are saved from deserved punishment, then we are 
taught to show no mercy to those who have injured us 
for observe, we are to forgive those we have a quarrel 
against, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven 
us. Thus, to be in accordance with Universalist theol- 
ogy, the law of quick retaliation should universally pre- 
vail in human society ! The injunction contained ia 



SeC, 70.] UxiYERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



173 



these texts, when properly considered, entirely over- 
throws the doctrine of no escape from punishment. A 
display of text is made by Mr. Skinner to show " that the 
Scriptures never speak of forgiving punishment," and 
that " forgiveness of sin only is taught." — V. III. and 
Def., p. 250. This is not only weak, but wicked, for the 
design is deceptive. Nothing is said of forgiving pun- 
ishment, for the good reason that the sinner does not 
commit punishment, but sin ; and when this sinful act 
is forgiven, the sinner is saved from the punishment 
which would otherwise follow. " What is pardon but a 
revocation of the sentence of condemnation, and thereby 
a remission of the penalty of the law ? We can form 
no other idea of pardon than this ; and the reason is be- 
cause sin — we speak of the transgression of the law — is 
an action, not a substance, and therefore intangible, and 
you cannot treat with it, either to forgive it or to pun- 
ish it, apart from the agent which commits it. A sinner 
is pardoned just so far as his punishment is remitted to 
him, and no further." — Merritt. 

Great importance is attached to forgiveness, as every 
reader of the Bible knows. But according to the 
hypothesis that none are saved from deserved punish- 
ment by it, we think it would puzzle a philosopher, as 
well as a divine, to show what advantage a forgiven sin- 
ner possesses over one that is not forgiven. 

The forgiven is punished all his sins deserve, and the 
unforgiven is punished no more. Such forgiveness is of 
equal value with a pardon from his holiness the Pope. 
Having manufactured a new theology, the leaders in the 
sect have found it necessary to form a new language to 
suit it. What linguist has ever informed us that for- 
giveness or pardon means to save from sin by preventing 
it in the future, and that, too, without conveying the idea 
of deliverance from che punishment due sins that are 
past ? These words are never so understood when em- 



174 



Univeesalism not or the Bible. [Part X, 



ployed in reference to the common affairs of life. A 
number of persons unite in petitioning the Executive of 
the State for the pardon of a certain criminal in the 
State prison. The bearer of it appears before the gov- 
ernor and explains as follows : May it please your 
Honor : Your petitioners do not wish to be understood 
as asking that the criminal should be released from any 
punishment he is doomed to suffer; but, on the other 
hand, we desire he should suffer the whole penalty. We 
mean by asking a pardon that you should take away his 
love of crime and prevent his committing it in future. 
The Executive would either count the man insane, or 
consider it an unmitigated insult. 

A son violated parental law. With deep penitence 
he seeks forgiveness of his father. I will forgive you, 
says the father, but my idea of forgiveness does not 
allow me to withhold a single blow that you deserve, 
therefore take off your coat and receive the twenty 
lashes I threatened you. Would that son seek forgive- 
ness a second time ? Would he not rather pray, " Father, 
forgive me not ? " 

Some years ago President Jackson pardoned a leader 
of a piratical crew who was under sentence of death in 
Boston. The pardon was granted not because he was 
innocent of the charge of piracy, for none doubted his 
guilt, but in consideration of the pleadings of his wife, 
and of a heroic and humane deed in which at one time 
he had risked his own life to save others. On the recep- 
tion of the communication the officer in charge, with the 
Universalist idea, would have, reasoned thus : Pardon 
saves from the punishment of no sins already commit- 
ted; I will therefore proceed to hang the man at the 
time appointed ! All must see that such an act would 
be carrying out the Universalist idea of pardon, for in 
such a case he would suffer the whole penalty and be 
most effectually prevented from committing piracy in 



Sec. 70.] Universalism xot of the Bible. 175 



the future. But what would the world think of that 
officer's idea of pardon? The truth is, this notion that 
forgiveness implies no remission of punishment for sins 
committed is at war with common sense, the common 
and established use of language, and the word of God. 
That penitents have been saved from deserved punish- 
ment, and that such salvation is established in the econ- 
omy of God's grace, we propose now to show most 
clearly from the Scriptures. So numerous are the texts* 
where this doctrine is taught, either directly or indirect- 
ly, that we shall present but a few compared with the 
number which might be adduced. Take the case of the 
woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee. The Saviour 
said of her, (Luke vii, 47,) "Her sins, which are many, 
are forgiven." That this had respect to sins already 
committed the language most explicitly declares. Re- 
mark : " Her sins, which are many" etc. Now, sin 
could not be Tier sins till she had committed them, hence 
she was, by her forgiveness, saved from the punishment 
she deserved. This is clear also from the illustration of 
the Saviour, as follows : " There was a certain creditor 
which had two debtors : the one owed him five hundred 
pence and the other fifty. And when they had nothing 
to pay, he frankly forgave them both." Verses 41, 42. 
Christ used this illustration to show Simon that the rea- 
son why this woman loved so ardently was that she 
had been forgiven much ; hence, he proposed the ques- 
tion respecting the forgiven debtors, " which of them 
will love most?" Verse 42. Simon answered: "He to 
whom he forgave most." Verse 43. The Saviour re- 
plied : c< Thou hast judged rightly." Verse 43. But ac- 
cording to the newfangled notions of Universalists, the 
forgiveness of the woman relieved her from no punish- 
ment for past sins, and the Saviour should have illustra- 
ted the case as follows : " There was a certain creditor 
which had two debtors: the one owed. him five hundred 



176 Universalis^: not or the Bible. [Part I, 



pence and the other fifty, and he exacted the whole sum 
of them without remitting: a single farthing, and then 
frankly forgave them both ! " Such an act must have 
produced great love for the creditor, and especially on 
the part of the one that was forced to pay most ! So 
plain is this case, that every honest mind must admit 
that the Universalist doctrine of forgiveness is contra- 
dicted by the Sou of God himself. If we are not taught 
in this case salvation from punishment for past sins by 
forgiveness, then we can learn nothing from the Bible. 
That forgiveness saves from punishment for past sins is 
evident from those passages which speak of remission of 
sins. Take the declaration of Paul, where, speaking of 
Christ, he says : " Whom God hath set forth to be a 
propitiation through faith in his blood ; to declare his 
righteousness for the remission of sins that are past" 
Rom. iii, 25. 

Here the apostle asserts that Christ's righteousness 
was declared for the remission of sins that are past. To 
remit sin that is past cannot mean to prevent the act, 
for to talk of saving men from committing sin already 
committed, is to utter nonsense. Sin, after it is com- 
mitted, admits of no salvation except from its guilt and 
punishment. What can be remitted of a sin past, but 
the punishment ? Just nothing. Universalism opposes 
this view, and in this it conflicts again, not only with the 
word of God and Christian experience, but also with 
the most eminent linguists of the age. Webster, in de- 
fining " remission," refers to the Scriptures, and says its 
meaning is, c< Forgiveness ; pardon ; that is, the giving 
up of a punishment due to a crime ; as, the remission of 
sins." Matt, xxvi ; Heb. ix. God's declaration to sin- 
ners is : " When I say unto the wicked, thou shalt 
surely die ; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is 
lawful and right ; if the wicked restore the pledge, give 
again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life 



SeC. 70.] UNIVERSALIS}! NOT OF THE BlBLE. 177 

without committing iniquity ; he shall surely live, he 
shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed 
shall be mentioned unto him." Ezek. xxxiii, 14-16. This 
has respect to past sins. Observe: "If the wicked re- 
store the pledge, give again that he had robbed — none of 
his sins that he hath committed" etc. A righteous God 
never threatens a punishment which is not deserved, nor 
promises that which is false oa? inconsistent. It will be 
seen at a glance that salvation from deserved punish- 
ment for repentant sinners is here promised by the God 
of truth, and thus is the Universalist assumption again 
contradicted. (Sec. OIL) Look at the parable of the 
barren fig-tree — " A certain man," etc. Luke xiii, 6-9. 
We suppose it will be readily admitted that by the 
owner of this vineyard God is meant, and by the tig- 
tree we are to understand accountable beings. Those 
represented by the fig-tree deserve punishment. " Cut it 
down ; why cumbereth it the ground ? " The interces- 
sion of the dresser of the vineyard, saying: "If it bear 
fruit, well ; if not, then after that thou shaft cut it 
down," clearly indicates that on condition of its bearing 
fruit in future it should be saved from deserved punish- 
ment for its previous barrenness. As this was spoken to 
illustrate the dealings of God with men, salvation from 
deserved punishment is clearly taught. The man of 
Christian experience needs no argument to convince him 
that forgiveness includes the idea of salvation from de- 
served puuishment ; neither does the man who is truly 
penitent for his sins ever once imagine he has been fully 
punished for them up to the present time, but enters 
deeply into sympathy with the Psalmist, and prays, 
"For thy name's sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity, 
for it is great." Psa. xxv, 11. This supplication stands 
directly opposed to the notion of no salvation from pun- 
ishment. Remark: Pardon mine iniquity, or sin. Xo 
sin is ours till it is committed. For it is great ; not 

12 



IV 8 TJnitersalism not of the Bible. [Parti, 



will be great after it is committed. It was pardon for 
past sin that the Psalmist sought, as all must see. 

Now we can form no conception of a blessing, called 
pardon for past sin, save that of salvation from its con- 
sequences. Said Ezra, that learned and pious scribe : 
"After all that has come upon us for our evil deeds, and 
for our great trespass, seeing that thou, our God, hast 
punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast 
given us such deliverance as this." Ezra ix, 13. What 
language could be framed to more positively contradict 
Universalism than this? — that says none suffer less 
thar. their iniquities deserve, which is directly opposed 
to the Bible, and, of course, must be false. The same 
fact is asserted by the Psalmist : " He hath not dealt 
with us after our sins ; nor rewarded us according to 
our iniquities." Psa. ciii, 10. The reader will please 
turn to Exod. xxxii, 8-14: u And the Lord said unto 
Moses," etc. 

The following is from the pen of another upon this 
passage, and also upon the threatening of God against 
the Xinevites : 

"Here God is represented as threatening his people 
with an overthrow, and as turning away from the evil 
which he thought to do, at the intercession of Moses. 
The evil with which God threatened them was a punish- 
ment for the sin of idolatry, in making and worshiping 
a golden calf. Now this threatened punishment was 
just, or it was not ; if it was just, then God saved the 
rebellious Israelites from a just punishment; for he 
turned away from the evil which he thought to do unto 
them, and did it not ; and if the threatened punishment 
was not just, then God once thought to do an unjust 
evil to h'i< people. Therefore it must be admitted that 
God did save the people from a just punishment in this 
case, since it cannot be admitted that he threatened and 
thought to do that which was unjust. The divine 



Sec. 70.] Universausm not of the Bible. 



179 



clemency exercised toward condemned and devoted 
Nineveh, is another instance of salvation from just pun- 
ishment. God threatened Nineveh with an overthrow 
in forty days, and yet on their repentance it is said, 
(Jonah iii, 10,) 'And God saw their work, that they 
turned from their evil ways ; and God repented of the 
evil that he had said he would do unto them ; and he 
did it not.' 

" The remarks which have been just made on the case 
of the idolatrous Israelites will apply with equal force 
to the preservation of Nineveh. God either saved the 
people of Nineveh from a just punishment, or else he 
threatened them with an unjust punishment. It will 
not be a sufficient reply to this to say that the punish- 
ment, with which they were threatened, would have 
been just had they not repented, but in view of the 
change which took place in their moral character it 
w T as not just, and therefore was not inflicted ; for this 
would be to suppose that the threatened overthrow was 
intended as a punishment for their sins which they had 
not committed, but which they would have committed 
in future time, which is false. 

" 1. They were threatened directly for what they had 
already done. The Lord said unto Jonah, (chap, i, 2,) 
' Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against 
it ; for their wickedness is come up before me? God 
here speaks of their wickedness in the present time, is 
come up, and not in the future, will or will have come 
up. God did not command Jonah to cry against them 
because they were about to be very wicked, but because 
their wickedness had already come up before him. 

' k 2. Jonah attributes the preservation of Nineveh to 
the grace, mercy, and great kindness of God. Chap, 
iv, 2 : 4 1 knew that thou art a gracious God, merciful, 
slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth thee 
of the evil.' Now, on the supposition that the Nine- 



180 Universalis:^ not of the Bible. [Part I, 



vites did not deserve the threatened overthrow, in view 
of their reform, wherein do the grace, mercy, and great 
kindness of God appear in their preservation ? This 
view represents God as being gracious, merciful, and 
great in kindness, merely because he did not inflict an 
unjust punishment — which is too absurd to be indulged 
in for a moment. It is clear, then, that the punishment 
with which Nineveh was threatened was just, in view 
of what they had already done; and if so, it is conclu- 
sive that God saved them from a just punishment." — 
Rev. L. Lee, D.D. 

In the light of these Scriptures we see the meaning 
of the passage which Universalists drag into their serv- 
ice, found Exod. xxxiv, 6, 7 : " And the Lord passed by 
before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God, 
merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in 
goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, for- 
giving iniquity, and transgression, and sin, and that 
will by no means clear the guilty." The sense of this 
text is obviously this : 44 God bears long with sinners 
when they deserve punishment, and if they repent he 
forgives them, but he will by no means clear the guilty if 
impenitent." Many of the threatening*, as well as the 
promises, of the Bible have conditions implied though 
not expressed. Take, as an illustration of this, God's 
message to Nineveh : " Forty days and Nineveh .shall 
be overthrown " Remark : It is not said it shall be 
overthrown except the inhabitants repent ; but the lan- 
guage is positive in its character, " shall be overthrov-nP 
But there was a condition implied though not expressed, 
for by their penitence the evil was averted ; or, in other 
words, God cleared >the guilty, as has been shown. 
Just so in the case before us : if penitent, God will clear 
the guilty, but he will by no means clear such if not 
penitent. The Lord in this passage declares himself to 
be long-suffering. Peter gives him the same character, 



Sec. 70.] Universalism not of the Bible. 



181 



(2 Pet. iii, 9 ;) and Paul speaks of his forbearance and 
long-suffering. Rom. ii, 4. By long-suffering is meant 
patience, clemency. By forbearance, omitting to pun- 
ish, lenity ; that is, sinners are borne with when they 
deserved to be punished. But Universalist views drive 
long-suffering and forbearance completely out of the 
divine administration. If God punishes men to the full 
extent as soon as sin is committed, where, we ask, is his 
forbearance and long-suffering? A father punishes a 
child in every instance just as soon as his commands 
are violated. What would be thought of the man who 
should extol him for his long-suffering and forbearance ? 
A child of eight years would know better. The falsity 
of the Universalist theory discovers itself in contradict- 
ing the Bible in this as well as many other things. 
The text at the head of this section is often used to 
prove that God is merciful to the ungodly in punishing 
them, therefore none will be punished more than shall 
be for their good. " We admit that punishment is often 
connected with mercy, but not that the mercy always 
extends to the individual sufferer." " God 6 divided the 
Red Sea into parts, and made Israel to pass through 
the midst of it, but overthrew Pharaoh and his host in 
the Red Sea ; for his mercy endureth forever.' Psa. 
cxxxvi, 13-15. Mercy is here connected with the over- 
throw of Pharaoh and his host ; but no man in his 
senses supposes the mercy extended to the Egyptians. 
It was a mercy to the Israelites to be delivered in this 
way out of the hands of their enemies." — Isaac. So in 
Psa. lxii, 12, God is considered merciful because he 
would protect his people and destroy their enemies. 

One text more, and we leave the subject with the 
reader : u He that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost 
hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal dam- 
nation." Mark iii, 29. By this we see that forgiveness 
and damnation stand opposed to each other. He who 



182 



Universalis^ not of the Bible. [Part I, 



is forgiven is not damned, and be who is damned is not 
forgiven. These words of Christ stand directly opposed 
to the Universalist doctrine, that forgiveness saves from 
no deserved punishment. To show that penitent "be- 
lieving sinners are saved from merited punishment, we 
might call to our aid the doctrine of atonement, so fully 
established in the Jewish economy and consummated 
by the death of Christ, and taught all through the New 
Testament, but especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
But a sufficiency has already been presented to estab- 
lish the point with the candid. Universalist views of 
forgiveness are also refuted in Matt, xviii, 23-35. 

LXXI. " For God shall bring every work into judg- 
ment, with every secret thing, whether it be good y or 
whether it be evil." Eccles. xii, 14. 

It is inquired : " Is it said, c God shall bring every 
work into judgment ' in the future, immortal existence? 
No such statement is made. The Saviour said when on 
earth, c Now is the judgment of this world. 5 John xii, 
31. ' For judgment I came into this world.' John ix, 39. 
4 Verily he is a God th&t judffeth in the earth? Psa. lviii, 
11." — Guide, p. 73. (On the Scriptures quoted see 
Sec. LI.) 

Let us apply Mr. Whittemore's rule to his own doc- 
trine. " Is it anywhere said in the Bible that all men 
shall be saved ' in the future, immortal existence ? No 
such statement is made. The Saviour said when on 
earth,' 4 This day is salvation come.' Luke xix, 9. Simeon 
said, 'Mine eyes have seen thy salvation.' Luke ii, 30. 
Paul said, 'Now is the day of salvation.' 2 Cor. vi, 2." 

Now, if the argument of the " Guide " sets aside a fu- 
ture judgment, then is future salvation set aside by the 
same method, and Universalism is proved a fable. So 
the man has discharged a gun which blows his own 
brains out — a kind of gun in very common use among 



Sec. 72.] Universalis^ not of the Bible. 183 



the class of writers to which lie belongs. The whole 
connection in which the text is found shows that a judg- 
ment beyond the grave is intended. The inspired writer 
brings it in as the winding up of the drama of human 
life. He is giving a description of the scenes of old 
age and death, and, in a very impressive manner, adds : 
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: fear 
God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole 
duty of man. For God will bring every work into judg- 
ment," etc. By judgment is here meant an examination 
of conduct, a bringing to light of secret things, and de- 
ciding whether they be good or evil. But where in, all 
the history of this world is there any thing which suits 
this language ? Some die in the very act of murdering 
others. Such must be judged in the future world if 
anywhere. See Sec. XLYI, also LX. 

LXXIL " Behold, I bring you good tidings of great 
joy, which shall be to all people." Luke ii, 10. 

What is meant by the good tidings named ? " The 
word evangelizomoi, here rendered ' 1 bring you good 
tidings,' is translated 'Preach the Gospel.' Luke iv, 18 ; 
xx, 1 ; Acts xvi, 10. The precise signification is ex- 
pressed in the common translation." So says Page, the 
Universalist commentator. The preaching of the Gos- 
pel, then, is what is meant by glad tidings. Well, what 
is it to preach the Gospel according to Universal ists ? 
It is to proclaim the salvation of all men. It is assumed, 
too, that all our race are to be made joyful by these 
tidings. " The blessing was designed for all ; hence the 
annunciation of it would be good news, tidings of great 
joy, to all." — Page. The tidings, then, are to produce 
the universal joy. But when is this universal joy to take 
place by the preaching of Universalism ? Xot in this 
world, surely, Universalists themselves being witnesses ; 
for they tell us that the blind Partialists are enshrouded 



184 



TTniversalism not of the Bole. [Part I, 



in gloom and sadness because they do not believe in 
their doctrine ; and, furthermore, millions have died who 
have never heard of universal salvation. Now, as it is 
affirmed that all will be made joyful by the preaching of 
this Gospel, and as it is an admitted fact that all are 
not made so in this world, it follows that to produce 
this universal joy this Gospel must be preached in the 
future state. But if this be so, then all are not joyful 
in the future world ; for if they are, then they need no 
Gospel preached to make them so, and thus the idea so 
fondly cherished that " there is no condition for man be- 
yond death but that in which he is as the angels of God 
in heaven," is blown to fragments at once. In view of 
this conclusion, growing out of premises furnished by 
themselves, we see no other way for them but, after 
having made so much proficiency in the science of 
divinity, to go back to the old obsolete doctrine of their 
fathers, by which they taught that devils and damned 
spirits would have the Gospel preached to them in hell, 
and thus be recovered. It cannot be well doubted but 
the commission given by Christ to preach the Gospel 
would harmonize with the announcement of the angels 
respecting the same subject. If the angels, by their 
message, taught Universalism, the divine Saviour knew 
it ; and if he was a Universalist, and came into the world 
to establish that doctrine, we might reasonably expect 
to see great prominence given to it in the Gospel com- 
mission that he gave to his apostles, especially as they 
were to go out to preach among believers in endless 
punishment. (Sec. CXXXI.) We should expect to find 
in it something like the following : Go ye into all the 
world and preach to all classes of sinners, saying, Fear 
not in your unbelief and wickedness, but rejoice and be 
exceeding glad, for heavenly bliss is yours, irrespective 
of your conduct here, as soon as death does its work, or 
at the next conscious existence. Fearlessly expose au<i 



Sec. 72.] Universaltsm not of the Bible. 



185 



rebuke, before every creature, the great errors ot a future 
judgment and endless punishment, showing them that hell 
is a fable, that their conduct here takes no hold on the fu- 
ture, or if any defect remains it shall be rectified by progress 
in the resurrection, (Sec. CXL,) and that sinners cannot 
commit sin enough to incur any more punishment than 
shall be for their good. This, in substance, is a Univer- 
salist commission. But the one our Saviour gave is very 
unlike this, and reads thus : " Go ye into all the world 
and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that be- 
lie veth and is baptized shall be saved ; and he that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned." Mark xvi, 15. 

Suppose Mr. Ballou had commissioned a class of men 
to have preached his Gospel, would he have failed to 
have inserted future bliss for all, and hell for none ? 

Universalist of the modern school would be guilty 
of such an omission. But the Saviour not only omits 
this, but says of those to whom the Gospel is sent, c * He 
that believeth not shall be damned" How deficient the 
Saviour was in commissioning men ; or, rather, how false 
is Universalism ! 

It is assumed that the phrase " all people" must mean 
the whole of the posterity of Adam. That this is incor- 
rect is evident from the fact before stated, namely, that 
millions have died who have never heard the Gospel 
preached ; neither will they, unless it is preached to them 
in the future world ; and this will not be contended for 
by Universalists themselves, as it is destructive to other 
fond notions of theirs. God threatened the Jews that 
if they worshiped other gods he would make them " a 
proverb and by- word among all people" 1 Kings ix, 7. 
Were the Jews to be a proverb and by-word among the 
whole human race ? Certainly not; but only among 
them who should know them after they had worshiped 
other gods. So the good tidings are designed for all 
people to whom they are sent ; but the history of Chris- 



186 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part It 



tianity shows that they have failed to make all who have 
heard them joyful. That Christ died for all, and that 
God, as a moral governor, wills the salvation of all 
moral agents, is equally true ; and it is true, too, that 
all do not yield obedience to his will. The Saviour 
preached his own Gospel, but all who heard it did not 
become joyful, but many were exceedingly enraged, and 
despised him and his message ; and his complaint was, 
" Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life." 

He sent out apostles, and how did they succeed ? 
Paul, although he was enabled to preach the Gospel 
extensively, yet his labors proved a savor of death unto 
death to some, (2 Cor. ii, 16 ;) and he threatened those 
who were disobedient to the Gospel with everlasting 
destruction. 2 Thess. i, 8, 9. Xow if the good tidings 
preached by the Son of God himself, and by his inspired 
apostles, failed to produce joy in great numbers of those 
who heard them, what folly to argue universal joy or 
salvation as a result of the preaching of the Gospel ! It 
should be observed that the text under consideration 
does not say that the good tidings shall make all people 
joyful^ but they were to be " to all people" that is, they 
were to be proclaimed, not merely to the Jews, but to 
all people, or as the Saviour commanded, " to every creat- 
ure /" hence Simeon, after clasping the Saviour in his 
arms, said : " Mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which 
thou hast prepared before the face of all people ; a light 
to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Is- 
rael." Luke ii, 30-32. But how can these be good 
tidings to all people if all are not saved ? We answer, 
that those tidings deserve the denomination of good 
which propose any advantages to us, whether we avail 
ourselves of them or not. The quality of the tidings 
does not depend upon the treatment they receive. To 
deceive the unthinking a play of words has been made 
upon the fact that ministers preach the doctrine of end- 



SeC. 72.] UXIYERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



187 



less punishment, and it is very gravely inquired if 
such doctrine can be considered good tidings. Now 
the design of the Gospel is not to procure or threaten 
men with this punishment, but to offer them salvation 
from that to which they were already exposed. A man 
is exposed to a midnight assassin ; a friend warns him 
of it, and points him out a way of escape. Is not such 
a warning good tidings to the man, although it apprises 
him of great danger ? Where there is no danger there 
can be no deliverance. The Gospel is indeed glad tid- 
ings to men, because they are greatly exposed, and in 
proportion as they discover their danger will they prize 
their deliverance. If a man is saved from the harmless 
bite of an insignificant insect he will value it but little ; 
but if he is saved from intense suffering or an untimely 
death it will forcibly impress his feelings. The Gospel 
cannot be preached without pointing out the evils and 
danger from which it proposes to deliver those who re- 
ceive it ; and as the faithful minister finds a future judg- 
ment and endless punishment clearly revealed in the 
Bible, he urges the danger of these as a motive why 
men should embrace the Gospel. Universalists, many 
of them, scout the idea of being exposed by sin to any 
suffering beyond this life ; hence they can never value 
their Gospel very highly, for they were never in any 
very great danger, and of course have never experienced 
any great deliverance. This accounts for the indiffer- 
ence found among its votaries when left to themselves. 
Such is the lack of vitality in the system that were New 
England wholly given up to this dogma it would soon 
die ont, so far as organization and support of its minis- 
try are concerned. The great vital principle of action 
in the order is, opposition to others. Remove this, and 
there is not enough in it to keep it alive a single year. 

But the Christian sees in the Gospel a great and glo- 
rious plan to rescue man from eternal death; and in 



188 UxiVEKSALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



Christ he sees a great Saviour dying for his sins and 
becoming 44 the author of eternal salvation unto ail 
them that obey him." (Heb. v, 9 ;) and all this the effect 
of great love. He has felt, too, his own personal expo- 
sure and wretchedness, and has been led to cry to God 
for salvation through Jesus Christ} and has found the 
Gospel to be good tidings, for his is a great salvation. 
He now feels as no man with Universalist views can feel, 
for he is forgiven much and he loves much. Luke vii, 47. 
Impressed with such views and feelings, he needs not 
the spur of opposition to keep him awake to duty, for 
the love of God is not merely talked of, but is shed 
abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost ; and this prompts 
him to deeds of noble daring and sacrifice for Christ and 
lost men, that they may receive the Gospel too. 

LXXIII. " For this purpose the Son of God was 
manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." 
1 John iii, 8. 

But what has the devil done ? Has his work exposed men 
to a future hell ? Universalists will not admit this for a 
moment. Well, what has Christ done by being manifested? 
Did he come to save from misery in the future world ? It is 
denied by high authority among Universalists that Christ 
came into this world to save men in the next. (Sec. CIV.) 

1. According to this dogma, universal salvation is to 
take place in the next world by the resurrection. (Sec. I 
and XCIV.) 

2. The works of either devils or men cannot endanger 
this salvation, as it was all made sure when God created 
man. (Sec. CV.) 

3. Christ never came into this world to save men in 
the next. 

With these views, extensively prevalent in the sect, 
and taught by Mr. Whittemore himself, what force or 
consistency is there in bringing thu text as he ( 4i Guide," 



See. 74.] TJniveksausm not of the Bible. 



189 



p. 52) and others of the order are wont to do, to prove 
the salvation of all in eternity ? Shall we so reflect upon 
the intelligence of these men as to count them ignorant 
of these contradictions in their arguments? Christ's 
coming that he might destroy the works of the devil, is 
expressive of the design of his advent, but it is a very 
different thing from saying that he will save all men un- 
conditionally. John in this same. epistle (1 John i, 9) 
has clearly stated the conditionally of this destruction 
of sin. "If we confess our si/is,he is faithful and just 
to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unright- 
eousness." In such penitent, believing hearts Christ 
destroys the works of the devil and qualifies them for 
heaven. That the finally impenitent will not be saved, 
because Christ was manifested that he might destroy 
the works of the devil, is also seen by the fact that to 
punish the sinner for his wickedness is not the work of 
the devil. After the sinner has slighted mercy and failed 
to comply with the conditions, and dying in that state, 
God's penalty must be inflicted, and there is no escape. 

LXXIY. u That in the dispensation of the fullness 
of times he might gather together in one all things in 
Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on 
earth." Eph. i, 10. 

In an unrestricted sense, the text includes not merely 
human beings, but eve'-y created object, such as beasts, 
birds, fishes, lvptiles, plants, etc. As none will contend 
that these things are included, we see that the text is to 
be understood in a restricted sense. John the Baptist 
came to " restore all things." Matt, xvii, 11. It was 
not his office to restore the universe to its original 
order, or to restore the whole human race to bliss ; 
but to restore all things to be restored by his ministry. 
(Sec. XXX.) So God in the fullness of times will gather 
all things in Chiist to be gathered. The idea is, that -in 



190 



Universalism not of the Bible. 



[Part I, 



the "fullness of times," when Christ shall have finished 
his work as Mediator, when he shall deliver up the king- 
dom to the Father, (1 Cor. xv, 24,) from whom he re- 
ceived it, (Matt, xxviii, 18,) all the saints in heaven and 
all the faithful then living upon earth, whether Jews or 
Gentiles by birth, shall be made to constitute one tri- 
umphant Church, as they are in fact one family now. 
Eph. iii, 15. 

But bear in mind that it never was the design of God 
in the gift of his Son that moral agents who fail to 
comply with the conditions of the Gospel should be 
gathered into the Church triumphant. We learn by 
language equally strong (Col. i, 20) that God designed 
to "reconcile all things unto himself" by Christ. But 
we also learn from the context that the reconciliation 
takes place in this world, and that it is conditional, for 
the reconciled are exhorted to " contim/e in the faith," 
and not to be " moved away from the hope of the Gos- 
pel ;" and the apostle, speaking upon the same subject, 
(2 Cor. v, 19, 20,) shows not only that the work takes 
place in this world, but conjoins this reconciliation with 
the moral agency of men ; for while the embassadors 
for Christ beseech, sinners are to become reconciled, 
which would be a work wholly uncalled for if all are 
to be reconciled unconditionally in a future state. 
(Sec. LXXV.) Furthermore, the Saviour has declared 
most explicitly that at the time specified by the apostle, 
instead of a gathering of the whole human race to con- 
stitute them happy forever, some shall be sent " away 
into everlasting punishment." Matt, xxv, 46. Paul 
teaches the same. 2 Thess. i, 9. 

LXXV. "And having made peace through the blood 
of the cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; 
by him I say, whether they be things in earth, or things 
in heaven." Col. i, 20. 



Sec. To.] Universalism not or the Bible. 



191 



This text simply informs us of God's design in giving 
his Son to die for the world, which was that he might 
reconcile all things unto himself by Christ. That the 
design contemplates in its provisions the reconciliation 
of all men to God is admitted. But it does not follow 
from thence that all are, or ever will be, reconciled, for 
there are certain terms of reconciliation presented which 
men as moral agents are to comply with. That men 
can resist the means by which God designs to bring 
about this reconciliation is clear from what the apostle 
says in another place upon the same subject. Hear 
him : " To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the 
world nnto himself, and not imputing their trespasses 
unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of 
reconciliation. Now, then, we are embassadors for 
Christ, as though God did beseech you by us ; we pray 
you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." 2 Cor. 
v, 19, 20. Observe: TJniversalists bring the text at the 
head of this to prove, not that it is the purpose of God 
to make all holy and happy in this world, but in the 
future, for the resurrection is to usher all into bliss ; 
and they scout the idea that men in this world can do 
any thing toward procuring or preventing their final 
salvation. (Sec. XCIY.) 

But it is the purpose of God that men shall be recon- 
ciled in this world, and for this intent embassadors are 
sent. That this is correct we see by the Scriptures fol- 
lowing the passage, where we learn that some were then 
reconciled, (v. 21,) and that even after the reconciliation 
has taken place final salvation is suspended upon the 
condition of perseverance, (v. 22, 23) ; for immediately 
after the apostle had expressed the pleasure of God con- 
cerning the reconciliation of all things, he acids : " And 
you hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through 
death, to present you holy, and unblemished, and unre- 
provable in his sight; if ye continue in the faith, 



192 Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



grounded and settled, and be not moved away from 
the hope of the Gospel." With what propriety a pas- 
sage can be brought which contemplates a reconcilia- 
tion to take place in this world, in which man's agency 
is employed, both as embassadors and recipients of the 
blessing, to prove that all will be saved in the future 
state, independent of human agency, by the resurrec- 
tion, the reader must determine. The truth is, it no 
more teaches the salvation of ail men in the eternal 
state than it does the return of the Jews to Palestine. 

LXXVL " Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed 
in the earth, much more the wicked and the sinner." 
Prov. xi, 31. 

This text is adduced to prove that the righteous and 
the wicked experience a full retribution in this world. 
But does the passage assert this ? It neither asserts or 
implies this ; for to understand it in the absolute sense 
of the language, it affirms that the wicked and the sin- 
ner are much more than recompensed. Again : The 
Ilniversalist construction makes the first member of the 
text deny that the righteous are recompensed in heaven, 
which contradicts the Saviour. Matt, v, 11, 12. Our 
opponents profess to believe in just rewards and punish- 
ments in this world according to works; that the 
wicked and the righteous suffer and enjoy all they de- 
serve in this world as a result of their conduct. But 
the Bible says: a All things come alike to ail: there is 
one event to the righteous and to the wicked : to the 
good, and to the clean, and to the unclean ; to him that 
sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not ; as is the 
good so is the sinner." Eccles. ix, 2. 

This is asserted of men in this world, as the context 
shows. Taking this text alone, we see that a retribu- 
tion in this world is positively denied; and if Ave allow 
the Ilniversalist construction of Prov. xi, 31, we have 



Sec. 77.] Univeksalism xot of the Bible. 



193 



Scripture arrayed point blank against Scripture. We 
have not introduced this text because we believe that 
the Spirit designed to teach that there is absolutely no 
difference between the righteous and the wicked in this 
world, but just to show what might be done were we to 
use the same license Universalists do in applying Script- 
ure. They bring Pro v. xi, 31, to disprove future retri- 
bution, and with equal propriety we bring Eccles. ix, 2, 
containing language more explicit, to disprove present 
retribution, and thus God's righteous administration is 
banished from both worlds ! Now what does this re- 
sult teach us ? It shows us that to arrive at the truth, 
we should compare Scripture with Scripture. If we 
take these passages to the X ew Testament and compare 
them where the future condition of man is more clearly 
brought to light, we shall find that after death is the 
judgment, (Heb. vi, 2 ; ix, 27,) and that endless pun- 
ishment awaits the finally impenitent. Matt, xii, 32 ; 
xxv, 46. That God smiles upon the good here, and im- 
parts an inward comfort that the wicked are strangers 
to, and that he frowns upon the ungodly, and thus gives 
each a foretaste of what awaits them in the future, is 
true ; but then the good often suffer here by the conduct 
of the wicked, while some of the wicked enjoy worldly 
comforts of which some of the pious are deprived. 
Even their own pious acts have often been the occa- 
sion of intense sufferings in this world. Psa. xxxiv, 19 ; 
John xvi, 33 ; Acts xvi, 22 ; 1 Cor. xv, 19 : compare 
with Job xxi, 7, 9; Psa. lxxiii, 3-12. Is this the 
way that each class is fully 44 recompensed ? " (See Sec. 
XL VI.) 

LXXVII. " Forasmuch then as the children are par- 
takers of flesh and blood, he also took part of the same ; 
that through death he might destroy him that hath the 
power of death, that is, the devil ; and deliver them, 

13 



194 Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 

who, through fear of death, are all their life-time sub- 
ject to bondage." Heb. ii, 14, 15. 

This passage is brought by Universalists to prove 
that sin and the punishment of wicked men will have 
an end, because the devil will be destroyed. But before 
this text can avail them any thing they must prove that 
destruction, in the sense here used, means annihilation, 
and this they cannot do, since it is often said that the 
wicked shall be destroyed, who, they contend, will live 
in the enjoyment of bliss forever. (See 2 Thess. i, 9.) 
But were we to admit the annihilation of the devil, 
could that fact be brought in proof that all men will 
be saved ? By no means, for the death that he has the 
power of is not spiritual or eternal death, but the death 
of the body, as will be seen by a moment's attention to 
the passage. It is presumed that no one supposes that 
the word death, which occurs three times in this pas- 
sage, is to be understood in different senses. We ask, 
then, What death did Christ die ? It was not a spiritual 
death, for he " did no sin." It was most certainly the 
death of the body ; the death which was a consequence 
of his partaking of flesh and blood, ver. 14. Then it 
must surely be the death of the body which the devil 
has power over, and Christ by his resurrection has so 
destroyed (not annihilated) him, as that he has lost that 
power, and hence all shall be raised from the dead. 
But this proves nothing in favor of the salvation of all 
men, for while we learn from the Scriptures that by the 
resurrection the " vile body " shall be changed, (Phil, 
iii, 21,) it is nowhere asserted that the vile soul shall be 
changed by that event. That by the devil is meant sin 
personified, is assumption without proof. The apostle 
was not in the habit of adopting this blind method in 
speaking of sin, as all his epistles show. (On the per- 
sonality of the devil, see Sec. XCVII.) The promise 
of a seed to bruise the serpent's head (Gen. iii, 15) is 



Sec. T8.] Univeesalism not of the Bible. 



195 



sometimes presented in connection with this passage, 
which informs us that Christ took flesh, " that through 
death he might destroy him that hath the power of 
death, that is, the devil." "If the latter of these pas- 
sages explains the former, then both were accomplished 
when Christ died and rose from the dead; and by de- 
stroying the devil the apostle does not mean a literal 
destruction, but a destruction of his power, by which he 
held the children of God in bondage through the fear of 
death, ver. 15. And the apostle applies this to the time 
which then was, and not to the future state. If then it 
proves universal salvation, it must be that all men are 
now, and have been for eighteen hundred years, saved, 
and the devil destroyed ! " — Merritt. It has been de- 
nied by Universalists that Christ ever came into this 
world to save us in the next, (Sec. XXIX,) and Mr. 
Whittemore says, "The evils from which Jesus came to 
save men are in this world, and for this reason he came 
into this world to save them." — Guide, p. 254. Yet he 
takes the passage we have been considering, which 
treats of Christ's coming into this world and his work, 
to prove the salvation of all men in eternity ! (" Guide," 
p. 51.) Truth never demands such zigzag work to sus- 
tain it. 

LXXVIII. " And saw heaven opened, and a certain 
vessel descending," etc. Acts x, 10-16. 

The following is Mr. Whittemore's whole argument to 
prove Universaiism from Peter's vision. " Peter saw, in 
the vision of the vessel like a sheet knit at the four cor- 
ners, that all men came down from heaven ; that they 
are all encircled in the kind care of God, while here on 
earth •, and, that all will be drawn up again into heaven" 
— Guide, p. 44. Well done, Mr. Whittemore ! Reader, 
are you not captivated ? All men came down from 
heaven, and are placed upon earth, and all will be drawn 



196 



Uniyeesalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



up again into heaven ! So it seems that the whole race 
of man, all who have lived, now live, or may hereafter 
live, have once been holy and happy in heaven, and 
while in this place of bliss the Lord put them out and let 
them down to earth to suffer, as a race, six thousand 
years or more, and then he is to draw them all up to 
heaven again. How does this comport with the idea of 
a kind Father, about which Universalists say so much ? 
Would a kind earthly parent do thus ? But the suffer- 
ings of earth are doubtless rendered less intense by the 
fact that but few remember that they once lived in 
heaven. We doubt if the author of the " Guide," with 
all his acumen, has any recollection of it. People have, 
very generally, been in the habit of thinking that all 
have not lived upon this earth an equal length of time, 
hence the distinctions, in language at least, of old and 
young that have obtained. Many, too, have been in the 
way of thinking that some have already gone to heaven 
while others linger below. But progress is a character- 
istic of the age, and we now see by Peter's vision, while 
Mr. Whittemore holds the candle, that these views are all 
wrong, for the whole human race came down from 
heaven at the same time, remain on earth the same 
length of time, and will all be taken to heaven at the same 
time. This is Universalist divinity Admirable ! But 
to be serious. What instruction did this vision convey 
to Peter? Was it that all were to be saved in heaven? 
Nothing like it. It was this : " Of a truth I perceive that 
God is no respecter of persons ; but in every nation he 
that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted 
of him" Yer. 34, 35. Peter had conscientious scruples 
against associating and eating with the Gentiles, which 
of course would debar him from preaching the Gospel to 
them. God took this method to divest Peter's mind of 
these scruples and prejudices, and he saw clearly that 
God would accept all of every nation who feared him 



SeC. 79.] UXIYEESALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 197 



and wrought righteousness. This is a very different 
thing from the salvation of all, whether they fear God 
and work righteousness here or not. To fear God does 
not sound well in Universalist ears. (Sec. LXIX.) 

LXXIX. " And Enoch, also, the seventh from Adam, 
prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh 
with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment up- 
on all, and to convince all that are ungodrv among; them 
of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodlily 
committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly 
sinners have spoken against him." Jude 14, 15. 

The author of the " Guide " favors us with no light upon 
this striking passage. Mr. Balfour finds in it a prophecy 
of Jerusalem's destruction. But how false and absurd to 
say that the Lord came with ten thousand of his saints to 
execute judgment upon all at the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem. Did thousands of saints come with Christ to Jeru. 
salem? Christ did not come himself at that event, 
(Sec. XLTII ;) and as to his saints, he contradicts this 
absurd exposition by representing it as a time when 
they should flee from Judea into the mountains, (Matt, 
xxiv, 16-20;) instead of coming with him, as those who 
wrest the Scriptures assert. As this interpretation con- 
tradicts the Saviour, no more need be said to refute it. 
This passage refers to the great day of which we read so 
much in the Scriptures, when Christ shall come as judge 
" to execute judgment iqion all" whether Jews or Gen- 
tiles. (See Sec. XLIX.) 

LXXX. " Marvel not at this ; for the hour is coming 
in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 
and shall come forth ; they that have done good, unto 
the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil 
unto the resurrection .of damnation." John v, 28, 29. 

But few texts have given more trouble to Universalists 



198 



TLsTVEESALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



than this, and many are the labored articles they have 
written to destroy its force. . Sometimes it denotes a 
moral resurrection, and then again it is a "figurative one, 
and had its fulfillment when Jerusalem was destroyed. 
We are favored with criticisms to show that the Greek 
word anastasis, rendered resurrection, does not always 
mean a literal resurrection from the dead, and that dam- 
nation does not necessarily imply endless punishment, 
together with the usual display of Scripture references 
and orthodox authorities. Mr. S. Cobb sees the Jeru- 
salem catastrophe most clearly in the passage, and dis- 
courses thus : a When the terrible calamities began to 
break forth upon them, (the Jews,) then they waked 
from the dust; then were they called forth from their 
graves, or their sacred places, in which they had been 
sleeping — they were roused from their dormancy. They 
came forth to a sense of their own shame, to the resur- 
rection of their own condemnation and suffered that 
dreadful punishment ; of which Moses and the prophets; 
and the Son of God had so repeatedly forewarned them ; 
and this judgment did not affect the wicked alone ; it 
affected the faithful disciples of Jesus also. It called 
them forth into a more full enjoyment of life and happiness. 
They had been pressed down under grievous persecutions, 
and the calamities of war prevailed in all the land. And 
when every thing in the natural world appeared black- 
ness and darkness, no doubt considerable darkness brood- 
ed over their minds." After assuming that a very won- 
derful change took place in the temporal and spiritual 
condition of Christians at the destruction of Jerusalem, 
Mr. Cobb adds, " Now this important change in the 
condition of the disciples, so wonderfully wrought, was 
as properly called their coming forth from the graves, 
through the authority of Christ, to the resurrection, as 
the redemption of the Jews from Babylonish captivity 
into their land was called of the Lord, by Ezekiel, the 



Sec. 80.] Uotveesaijsm not of the Bible. 



199 



bringing them up from their graves to inherit the land of 
Israel ; and equally striking is the declaration, They that 
have done evil shall come forth to the resurrection of con- 
demnation, to express the effectual arousing of the wicked 
and unbelieving from their graves of secrecy and their 
refuge of lies, to misery, shame, and contempt. (" Trum- 
pet, Xo, 669.") In the same number of the iC Trumpet," 
3Ir. Whittemore, speaking of Mr. Cobb's interpretation, 
says, u It is maintained by the Universalis! denomination 
with hardly an exception." So Mr. W. indorses it in 
behalf of the order. From these expounders, then. Ave 
learn that " all that are in the graves " were Jews and 
Christians, and that these both experienced a resurrec- 
tion at Jerusalem's destruction, the former to damnation 
and the latter to life. But were Jews and Christians 
raised then? Let us contemplate the Jews in the light 
of history. This informs us that Jerusalem was besieged 
six months by the Roman army, that eleven hundred 
thousand Jews perished in the city, and some hundreds 
of thousands out of it ; that the city and the temple were 
totally destroyed, that the Jews ceased to be a nation, 
were cast down from the high privileges they had hither- 
to enjoyed, and that large numbers of them were con- 
signed to hopeless bondage. This must be called a res- 
urrection ! "What is said about the Jews being : ' waked 
from the dust," " called forth from their secret places," 
etc., is mere home-made cloth, and proves nothing but 
the weakness of the cause it is designed to support. 
There is a beauty and propriety in the use of the figure 
in EzekiePs vision, (Ezek. xxxvii, 11-14,) it being there 
used to show that the Jews as a nation would be brought 
up out of their degradation and bondage in Babylon to 
the civil and religious privileges for which they were 
afterward distinguished. But in the case before us the 
reverse is the fact. They now became degraded instead 
of being raised. Their national character and privileges 



200 



Uniyeesalism xot of the Bible. [Part I, 



were now taken away instead of being restored. They 
now, keeping Ezekiel's figure in view, were sent down 
into their graves instead of coming forth from them. 
All must see the sophistry of producing Ezekiel's vision 
to patch up this interpretation. Again, these interpret- 
ers are quite sure that by John viii, 21, " Te shall die 
in your sins," is meant the death of the Jewish nation, 
winch took place when Jerusalem was destroyed. 
("Guide," p. 154.) So their exposition of John viii, 24, 
and of John v, 28, 29, when taken together, amounts to 
this : the death and resurrection of the Jewish nation 
both took place at the same time and by the same event, 
namely, the destruction of Jerusalem ! Error is ever in- 
consistent with itself. 

But Christians also came forth from their graves to 
the resurrection of life when Jerusalem was destroyed. 
Now we ask in what sense Christians were dead and in 
their graves before that event? Were they spiritually 
dead ? Then were they not Christians. Were they in- 
active in their Master's cause ? Never were Christians 
more active and devoted than before the destruction of 
Jerusalem. Such was their zeal, that the Gospel, before 
that event, had not only u spread through the Roman 
empire, but even to India and Parthia." — Porieus* Evi- 
dences. Was darkness brooding over their minds, as Mr. 
Cobb would have us believe ? Of this there is no evi- 
dence whatever. What ! is Christianity a mere creature 
of circumstances ? Must gloom and darkness brood 
over Christian minds in times of temporal calamities ? 
The martyrs were happy in the flames, and it is one of 
the chief glories of Christianity that it can render its re- 
cipients happy, independent of outward things. They 
can "rejoice and be exceeding glad " when persecuted. 
Matt, v, 12. True Christians have done this in all ages 
of the Church ; but to serve a rotten system it must be 
now made to appear that early Christians were a gloomy, 



SeC. 80.] UxiVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



201 



disconsolate, wretched, inactive people who were repre- 
sented by the Saviour as in their graves, needing the 
destruction of Jerusalem to raise them to life and make 
them happy ! To say nothing of the perversion, we ask 
where is the man, knowing any thing of the power of 
the Gospel upon his own heart, who can for a moment 
believe this ! But did not Christians experience some 
great temporal blessing at Jerusalem's overthrow ? In 
Matt, xxiv, 9, which TJniversalists apply to this event, 
we learn what reward Christ's followers received at that 
time. u Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, 
and shall kill you ; and ye shall be hated of all nations 
for my name's sake." See, also, verses 16-18. Was this 
their reward for having done good ? But it is said that 
they were raised to great privileges, and entered into 
great rest from persecution after the power of the Jews 
was broken. But what evidence is furnished of this ? 
Just none at all ; but on the contrary we learn that 
Christians were persecuted in a manner unparalleled for 
at least two hundred years after Jerusalem was sacked by 
the Romans. (Sec. XXVI.) Was this their resurrection 
to life ? TJniversalists, upon this and a few other texts, 
would make it appear that deliverance from the Jewish 
power was a great blessing to Christians, and that the 
Roman power was not to be dreaded, for under it great 
rest and privileges were to be enjoyed; but in their 
work on Matt, x, 28, they will have it that Christ is in- 
structing his disciples not to fear the Jews, but to great- 
ly fear the Roman power ! (Sec. XCI.) And thus the 
serpent bites himself again. All must see at a glance 
the perversion of the text when applied to Jerusalem's 
destruction. 

But some take the position that a moral or spiritual 
resurrection is intended in verse 25 of this chapter, and 
that the same construction is to be given to verses 28 
and 29. But this reduces the Saviour's language to non- 



202 



Universalism kot of the Bible. [Part I, 



sense. Hear it : " There is to be a spiritual resurrec- 
tion ; marvel not at this, there is to be a spiritual resur- 
rection ! " Such senseless tautology was never uttered 
by the Great Teacher, and the construction which re- 
quires it must be false. The text paraphrased upon 
this principle stands thus : " Marvel not at this, for the 
spiritually alive (they that have done good) shall come 
forth from their spiritual graves and be made spiritually 
alive; and they that are spiritually dead (have done 
evil) shall come forth from their spiritual graves and be 
made spiritually alive by a spiritual resurrection to dam- 
nation ! " 

If the same resurrection is taught in verse 25 that is 
in verses 28 and 29, then it must be obvious to all that 
the death and resurrection must be exactly the opposite 
the one to the other. If the resurrection is a spiritual 
or moral one, then the death is a moral death, that is, a 
death " in trespasses and in sins." " To come forth from 
this death is to come forth to a life of purity and happi- 
ness." Well, then, " the hour is coming, in the which 
all that are in the graves of sin and moral death shall 
come forth; they that have done good /" What ! done 
good ? Dead and buried in sin, and yet be doing good ? 
Is a man when dead and buried, alive, in the very sense 
in which he is dead ? Dead in trespasses and sins, and 
yet the condition of their coming forth unto the resur- 
rection of life (that is, holiness and purity) is their 
having done good, that is, having been holy and pure 
while dead and buried in sin. But look at the other 
part of the verse. " They that have done evil, to the 
resurrection of damnation" Of course all that were 
dead had done evil, if the death was a death in tres- 
passes and sins. To come forth from this death is to 
come forth to a life of holiness and purity, and yet this 
holiness and purity is the resurrection of damnation ? 
May the good Lord deliver us from such holiness and 



Sec. 80.] Universalis:*! not of the Bible. 



203 



purity. Such a construction resolves the whole passage 
into a mass of absurd nonsense." — Bishop Kingsley. 

The Universalist commentator assumes that a spiritual 
resurrection is intended, and of course denies that Christ 
speaks of the immortal resurrection. He says : " When- 
ever the sacred writers mention a retribution, they are 
silent in regard to a resurrection ; and whenever they 
mention a resurrection to immortality, they are silent in 
regard to a retribution. If we interpret this passage, 
therefore, to mean a resurrection of mankind from 
natural death to immortality, some to happiness and 
some to misery, w r e must do it in defiance of the invari- 
able usage of the New Testament writers." — Page, 

Here it is asserted that a resurrection to immortality 
is never spoken of by the sacred writers in connection 
with a retribution. The falsity of this is seen not only 
from the passage under consideration, but also in Heb. 
vi, 2, w r here Paul, in giving a summary of Christian doc- 
trines, speaks of the resurrection in connection with 
eternal judgment. (Sec. LVI.) Mr. Page avails himself 
of Mr. Balfour's favorite rule of " Scripture usage" a 
handy method by which to set aside a plain declaration 
of God, if he has not repeated it in the same language 
elsewhere. So the Saviour must not be understood to 
mean what he appears to mean in John v, 28, 29, because 
the Scriptures nowhere else assert the same thing in the 
same form of language ; as though God is not to be be- 
lieved unless he announces the same thing in the same 
form a dozen times. Christ says, " God is a spirit," and 
Universalists profess to believe it. Now what is " Scrip- 
ture usage'''' upon this? God's nature and attributes 
are often spoken of in the Bible, but nowhere, save in 
John iv, 24, is it asserted that " God is a spirit." Are 
we to conclude from this fact that the spirituality of the 
Divine Being is not taught by the Saviour? By no 
means. Speaking of the words graves and resurrection, 



204 



Universalis^ not of the Bible. [Part I, 



Mr. Page says : "It is certain that the two words are 
not thus connected in any other place in the New Testa- 
ment." 

This is said to bear against a literal resurrection. But 
we might with equal force say of the words God and 
Spirit, that it is certain that the two words are not 
thus connected in any other place in the " whole Bible, 
and thus prove that God is not a spirit ! But such work 
would be worse than trifling, as all must see, yet it is 
just the work of Universalist expositors. They assert, 
too, that all will be saved in the resurrection ; but 
neither the word saved or salvation is found in connec- 
tion with the word resurrection, when spoken of the im- 
mortal state, in either the Old or New Testament.* Is it 
just to conclude from this that noue will be saved in 
the resurrection? If so, where is Universalism ? We 
have met with another quibble, as follows : " If the pas- 
sage refers to the immortal state, then all must be saved 
and all must be damned, since all have done some good 
and ail have done some evil." Now what of force there 
is in this lies equally against any other application. Is 
it referred to Jerusalem's destruction ? Were each class, 
Jews and Christians, destroyed by the Romans, and 
each saved from that destruction ? No more upon this 
need be said. 

Another twist of the serpent is this ; " If the immor- 
tal resurrection is intended, then only those will be 
raised who have done good or evil, and thus infants are 
excluded." In reply we say, if Universalist Jerusalem 
resurrection is intended, then only those were to be 
raised who had done good or evil, and thus infants are 
excluded. But among the eleven hundred thousand that 
perished in that resurrection, (!) were there no infants? 
History informs us that mothers devoured their own in- 
fant offspring in that dreadful siege called by our oppo- 
nents a resurrection. It does not follow that no infants 



Sec. 80.] UxiTEESALisir xot of the Bible. 



205 



will be raised, merely because they are not named by 
the Saviour ; for observe, he does not say that those only 
are to be raised who have done good and evil, but all 
• are to come forth from their graves. He then speaks of 
the retribution of moral agents, and omits naming in- 
fants for the good reason that he was addressing adults, 
and his words were designed to influence moral agents 
in all succeeding ages of the Church ; and this omission 
no more excludes infants from salvation, than women are 
excluded from the benefits of the Saviour's death by the 
assertion of Paul, that Christ u tasted death for every 
MATf ; " thus omitting to name women. 

One more subterfuge : " This cannot refer to the resur- 
rection of the bodies of men, for multitudes of the dead 
are not in their graves at all." This is a most puerile 
objection. All must see that the general expression, 
u all that are in the graves," means all the dead, all 
within the empire of death, whether in the dust of the 
earth or in the sea. Observe, this was addressed to 
Jews, who believed in the resurrection of all men, con- 
stituting two classes, denominated " the just and unjust." 
Acts xxiv, 15. We learn from Josephus that the Jews 
believed that all men, the just and the unjust, would be 
raised and brought before God, the Word, or Christ, 
and be judged by him according to their works : that he 
should pass upon them a just sentence, " by giving justly 
to those who have done well an everlasting fruition, but 
alloting to the lovers of wicked works eternal punish- 
ment." — Dis. o?i Hades. Paul declared he believed as 
the Pharisees did concerning the resurrection. (Sec. X.) 
Taking into connection the Saviour's words and the be- 
lief of the Jews, can any be at a loss to know how they 
must have understood him ? They must have understood 
him as teaching the resurrection in their sense, for he 
qualifies nothing. He gives no explanation showing 
that he is using their doctrine of a future state as a fig- 



206 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I 5 



ure to convey the idea of spiritual life and death in this 
world, or temporal calamities upon their nation. He 
gave the Jews (vei\ 25-27) instruction relative to a 
spiritual resurrection, and his power and authority to , 
execute judgment, because he was the Son of man or the 
Messiah. At this they were astonished, and the Saviour 
seeing it, said : " Marvel not at this, (for this is no more 
surprising than the doctrine of the resurrection, already 
admitted by yon,) for the hour is coming in the which 
all that are in the graves (making a distinction between 
those morally and those literally dead) shall hear his 
voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done good 
unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done 
evil to the resurrection of damnation." " If the Saviour 
here is speaking of men dead in sin, and representing 
them as buried, he would, to have preserved sense, have 
represented the good as being alive. But both classes, 
the good and the evil, are dead ; both are in their 
graves ; both hear the voice of the Son of God ; both 
come forth from their graves, the one to a resurrection 
of life, the other to a resurrection of damnation" This 
passage of itself is an ever-enduring refutation of Uni- 
versalism and the Bush theory of the resurrection. See 
Sec. LI, where a resurrection and judgment at the end 
of time are proved ; also, Sec. XXVI and LXI on the 
coming of Christ, where the same is shown. 

LXXXI. " Thy kingdom come, thy will be done." 
Matt, vi, 10. 

" Whatsoever is not of faith is sin," Rom. xiv, 23. 

In No. 634 of the " Trumpet " is the following weighty 
affair thrown in by the editor : 

" Partialists say that Universalism is the devil's doc- 
trine ; and yet they all pray that it may be true. Is 
this praying c thy kingdom come, thy will be done.' " 

The assertion that nil pray that Universalism may be 



Sec. 81.] Universalis^! xot of the Bible. 



207 



true is very common, and as false as it is common. JTo 
understanding Christian ever prays that Universalism 
may be true or false, or that any other doctrine may be 
so. Doctrines are principles of the Divine government, 
and no more to be changed than God himself is to be 
changed. God's truth is immutable, whatever that 
truth may be. Christians do not pray for the salvation 
of all men in the Universalist sense, for, 

1. They believe there are millions of souls already 
saved, and, of course, for these they do not pray. 

2. They believe there are millions of souls already 
lost : for these they do not pray. 

When they use universal language in their prayers 
they have respect to men who are on probation, and to 
certain Scripture promises which are to be fulfilled 
through the instrumentality of the Church and the 
agency of the Divine Spirit, whose aid is promised if 
asked, and not to the whole human race, that is, all who 
ever have lived, now live, or may hereafter live on this 
earth. 

In assuming that Christians pray for all men in the 
above-named sense, Universalists connect with it Rom. 
xiv, 23, and consider it a great argument in favor of 
their views. The following is a specimen of this kind 
of sophistry, found in the " Universalist Companion " 
for 1841 : 

" If, then, we pray for the salvation of all mankind, 
and at the same time do not believe that our prayers 
will be answered, or, in other words, do not believe that 
all will be saved, do we pray in faith ? And are such 
prayers acceptable to God ? Ans. 6 Whatsoever is not 
of faith is sin.- Rom. xiv, 23." 

We have shown that Christians do not pray for the 
salvation of all men in the sense here named. We now 
ask, For what do Universalists pray ? Their ministers 
stand up before the people and pray for all men. What 



208 Universalis m not: of the Bible. [Part 1, 

do they mean by it ? Is it that all may be saved from 
an endless hell in the future state ? No. They deny 
that men are exposed to such a punishment. Further- 
more, they no more believe that our praying will in any 
way affect the salvation of men in the future state than 
that whistling or swearing will effect its accomplishment. 
To admit that men are in any way exposed to endless 
punishment would be fatal to their whole theory, as they 
well know. It is not, then, for the salvation of men in 
the future state that they pray. For what, then, do 
they pray when they use universal language in their 
prayers ? If they do not pray in reference to the future 
world, it must be that they have reference to the salva- 
tion experienced in this. Well, do they really believe, 
when they pray, that all men in the TJniversalist sense, 
that is, all that ever have lived and that now live, will 
come to the knowledge of the truth, and be saved in 
this world ? Certainly they do not, for such a thing is 
impossible. Notice, then, they do not believe that all 
or any men will be saved in the future state in answer 
to prayer ; for all will be saved independent of prayer, 
or any thing else done here. Neither do they believe 
that all will be saved in this world. Reader, remember 
this when a zealous disciple of Universalism presents 
this* weighty argument. Question him upon these points, 
and be careful to tell him that "whatsoever is not of 
faith is sin? 

Questions are sometimes put as follows : Can you 
pray that one soul may be damned to all eternity ? and 
if you cannot, ought you to believe that for which you 
cannot pray ? In answer to the first question we say, 
No ; and to the last we say, Yes. Sufficient reason for 
these answers could be given ; but to show the sophis- 
try of such questions in a few words, we submit the fol- 
lowing. The destruction of Jerusalem was a punishment 
divinely inflicted upon the Jews for their sins. No Uni- 



Sec. 82.] TJniveksalism xot of the Bible. 209 



verbalist will deny this. They will have it, too, that 
Paul taught Jerusalem's destruction in the most of those 
vivid descriptions of judgment and punishment he has 
given in his. epistles, but none will for a moment suppose 
that Paul desired, or would pray for, that dreadful 
calamity to come upon his brethren, the Jews; but the 
Jews experienced that calamity notwithstanding. Now 
if the doctrine of endless punishment is false, because 
Christians cannot pray that men may suffer it, the doc- 
trine of Jerusalem's destruction was false when Paul 
preached it, for the same reason, which is contrary to 
matter of fact ; therefore all such reasoning is false. 
We are told that men suffer in this world for their sins ; 
but are Universalists in the habit of praying that men 
may suffer ? Think of these things, reader, when these 
questions are proposed. 

For Universalist views of prayer see Sec. CVII. 

LXXXII. "The desire of the righteous shall be 
granted." Prov. x, 24. 

The following upon this is found in the u Universalist 
Companion" for 1841 : 

" Do not the righteous desire the salvation of all man- 
kind ? Will not the desire of the righteous be granted ? 
Ans. Prov. x, 24 : ' The desire of the righteous shall be 
granted.' " 

The whole text reads thus : " The fear of the wicked, 
it shall come upon him ; but the desire of the righteous 
shall be granted ; " and it is dismembered to serve the 
purposes of Universalism. The text teaches ^personal 
evil to the wicked, and a personal good to the right- 
eous, and has no more reference to the salvation of all 
men than it has to the damnation of all men. Let us 
take the same liberty with the first member of this 
text that these men do with the second, and see what it 
teaches*- 

14 



210 



UXIYEESALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



Do not many wicked men fear future and endless 
punishment ? Yes ; for Universalists themselves assert 
that many wicked men believe the doctrine. 

Will not the fear of the wicked come upon him ? 
Ans. Prov. x, 24 : " The fear of the wicked, it shall 
come upon him." Then is endless punishment true. 

Let us try the other member, and see what we can 
prove. 

Do not the righteous desire that sin and misery may 
now cease throughout the world ? Will not the desire 
of the righteous be granted? Ans. "The desire of 
the righteous shall be granted." This world, then, is a 
paradise ! 

Again, did not Jesus Christ, the righteous, desire the 
salvation of the Jewish nation, and evince that desire 
by his tears ? Will not the desire of the righteous be 
granted ? Ans. " The desire of the righteous shall be 
granted," therefore Jerusalem was never destroyed 
by the Romans, just as sure as Universalis! logic is 
sound. 

LXXXHI. " And the Lord God formed man of the dust 
of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath 
of life ; and man became a living soul." Gen. ii, 7. 

" Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; 
and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." 
Eccles. xii, 7. 

The following dialogue, manufactured by Mr. A. B. 
Grosh, a leading man in the denomination, was thought 
so valuable by Mr. Drew that he copied it into his 
t; Banner : " 

" Limitarian. My dear sir, your doctrine is a danger- 
ous, a very dangerous fallacy, and if you take not 
heed will result in the endless damnation of your im- 
mortal soul. 

" Universalist. What is the soul? Is it that 1 breath 



Sec. 83.] UXIYERSALTSM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



211 



of life 5 which God breathed into the nostrils of man 
when he c became a living soul ? ' 
U Z. I think it is. 

" TI. You agree, then, with me, that whatever is im- 
mortal in man must have come from Deity — must, in 
fact, be a part of himself. 

" L. I do. For he created all that is created. 

u IT, Very well. Now do you really believe that God 
will punish 4 his breath ' — a part of himself — to all eter- 
nity? [The Limitarian was silent, evidently unwilling 
to answer.] Now, my dear friend, the Bible teaches 
me that he will not. It says (Eccles. xii, 7) ' the spirit 
shall return unto God who gave it ' when the body re- 
turns to dust. 

" L. Yes, but that only refers to the souls of good 
men. 

" TI. And pray, from whom do the tricked receive 
their souls ? Is it from Satan, that they must return to 
him? Or does Satan get that portion of Deity so com- 
pletely under his control that he can hold it and punish 
it to all eternity, in despite of that Almighty Being of 
whom and whose it is?" 

" L. Dangerous sophistry ! Blasphemy ! [Exit." 

This is a choice specimen of Universalis divinity. 
The obvious design is to teach an old heathen notion, 
that the soul of man is a part of God ; and then, that 
endless punishment is false, because God will not punish 
himself to all eternity ! That the soul is not a part of 
God, but was created, is evident from the Scriptures, 
which declare that God made man in his own image. 
This, we conceive, was not spoken of the creation of the 
body, for that is no more the image of an intelligent, 
immortal, holy Spirit, than any other material substance. 
It was the soul that God made in his own image. Were 
it necessary, argument and Scripture might be produced 
to prove that God created the whole man, the soul as 



212 Univeesalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 

m 

well as the body; but other cod siderations will show in 
a few words the absurdity of the idea that the human 
soul is a part of God himself. Admit for a moment this 
idea, and what follows? It follows that a part of the 
Almighty is scattered about in millions of parts in the 
form of human souls, and that these souls have been suffer- 
ing more or less ever since the creation ; for none doubt, 
that we know of, but what the souls of men suffer as well as 
their bodies. " Will God punish a part of himself to all 
eternity ? " is the wise question proposed in the dialogue. 
In answer, we say that it requires no greater stretch of 
our credulity to believe that God will punish himself 
eternally, than it does to believe he can punish himself 
six thousand years by inhabiting human bodies. Again, 
the notion is quite common with Universalists that we 
are dependent upon the resurrection for a future exist- 
ence; but if the soul is a part of God, that must be false, 
unless a part of God may be annihilated ! Again, Uni- 
versalists very generally deny the resurrection of the 
body ; hence, all the future salvation so much talked of 
pertains to the soul. But we ask, Is it not both absurd 
and blasphemous to talk of saving a part of God ? We 
read of the death of the soul, and the Scriptures count 
man a sinner. Is the body the sinner, or has the soul 
something to do with it ? and if the soul has something 
to do in the matter, we ask, Does a part of a holy God 
sin ? Some have told us that all sin originates in the 
flesh, and that the soul is pure of itself, but is, by its 
connection with the body, forced into the service of the 
body, and thus sin is accounted for. But we ask, Is a 
part of the Almighty so pent up in the human body 
that it is obliged to do its bidding ; or in other words, 
does the creature govern the Creator ? Xo wonder that 
Mr. Grosh should represent the Litnitarian as exclaim- 
ing "Blasphemy ! " 

But no soul will be punished to all eternity, because 



Sec. 83.] Universalis^ not of the Bible. 



213 



" the spirit shall return to God who gave it." Eccles. xii, 7. 
Let it be observed that here nothing is said about the 
misery or happiness of the spirit. That all spirits will 
return to God Christians believe, and they believe, too, 
that he will dispose of them according to their deserts, 
and that to the ungodly, 64 it is a fearful thing to fall 
into the hands of the living God." Heb. x, 31. 

Thoughts might be given upon the attributes of God 
to show the antichristian character of the sentiment in- 
culcated by the dialogue ; but these brief hints are suffi- 
cient to show the reader that it wars with Scripture 
the nature of God, and common sense. This argument 
upon the soul, to prove their doctrine, was a very com- 
mon one among Universalists a few years since, but we 
had supposed, like much of their former truth, it was 
now obsolete, and were surprised at meeting this new 
edition of it in " The Banner." Any thing and any way, 
only prejudice the people against evangelical senti- 
ments, and induce them to believe, if possible, in Uni- 
versalism. 

One thought more. Stress is laid upon the phrase 
" breathed into" etc., as though the soul was a part of 
God on this account. The prophet, (Isa. xxx, 33,) speak- 
ing of Tophet, says, "the breath of the Lord, like 
a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it." Did a part of 
Deity kindle the fire in Tophet ? All will see that this 
is simply an expression of God's agency in producing it. 
So with Gen. ii, 7. 

LXXXIV. " My counsel shall stand, and I will do 
all my pleasure." Isa. xlvi, 10, 11. 

Is it the design of the Spirit in this text to teach that 
the pleasure of the Lord is done in all things ? By no 
means ; for respect is had to a particular subject, and we 
are not to draw a general conclusion from a particular 
case, especially when the Bible declares (Ezek. xxxiii, 11,) 



214 Universalism i^ot of the Bible. Part 1, 



that some things take place contrary to the pleasure 
of God. What is God's pleasure in the case before us ? 
The context explains as follows : " Calling a ravenous 
bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel 
from a far country ; yea, I have spoken it, I will also 
bring it to pass ; I have purposed it, I will also do it," 
v. 11. This counsel or pleasure was to be executed by a 
man. If we turn to chap, xliv, 28, w^e shall see who 
this man is, and what the pleasure of the Lord is. It 
reads thus : " That saith of Cyrus, he is my shepherd, 
and shall perform all my pleasure ; even saying to Jeru- 
salem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy 
foundation shall be laid." Here we see that God says 
of Cyrus, " he shall perform all my pleasure" that is, all 
my pleasure concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem and 
the temple. 

The position taken by Universalists is, that God's will 
is always done ; and their leading writers deny the free- 
dom of the human will. Mr. Ballou says, " It is evident 
that will or choice has no possible liberty." — T. on Atone- 
ment, p. 42. Mr. Rogers, following in his wake, says, 
" The notion of free-will is a chimera." — Pro and Con, p. 
290. Mr. Ballou, in showing that sin is intended for 
good, says, " It is not casting any disagreeable reflections 
on the Almighty to say he determined all things for 
good ; and to believe that he superintends all the affairs 
of the universe, not excepting sin, is a million times 
more to the honor of God than to believe he cannot, or 
he does not when he can." — T. on Atonement, p. 40. 
Again he says, " Natural evil is the necessary result of the 
physical organization and constitution of animal nature," 
p. 31 ; and then he informs us that " moral evil or sin 
owes its origin to natural evil," p. 32 ; and also that 
"man is independent of his volitions, and moves by 
necessity," p. 64. Mr Ballou is consistent with his 
theory when he says, " The Almighty had no occasion 



Sec. 84.] Uniyersalism not of the Bible. 215 



to dislike Adam after the transgression, any more than 
he had even before he made him," p. 104 ; and according 
to his deductions, u the divine favor can neither be 
gained nor lost." — Exp., vol. 1, p. 28. Says Mr. Whitte- 
more, "Man cannot do what his Maker wills he shall 
not do, and he cannot leave undone what his Maker wills 
he shall do." — Trumpet, No. 968. Other leading writers 
in the order might be added to this list whose views are in 
harmony with these. (Sec. CM.) Indeed, Universalism 
can be sustained in no other way than by resolving all 
the wickedness of the world into the sovereignty of God, 
and annihilating the moral agency of man ; for if the 
above views are correct, a steam-engine is as much a moral 
agent as a human being. Sin, by this view, is not merely 
reduced to a trifle, but there can be no such thing unless we 
come to the blasphemous conclusion that a holy God sins. 
These sentiments, in fact, make him the author of all sin 
and misery in the universe, and, when viewed in connec- 
tion with Bible declarations, charge him with the gross- 
est acts of hypocrisy toward his creatures, to say noth- 
ing of cruelty in punishing them for what they cannot 
avoid. As a specimen of its application in proof of Uni- 
versalism the following syllogism is presented, taken 
from the " Universalist Companion" for 1842 : 

" 1. It is God's will for all men to be converted and 
saved. 

46 2. God's will will be done. 

" 3. Therefore all men will be converted and saved." 

We find a set of syllogisms ready made at our hand, in 
the fifth number of the "Sword of Truth," in answer to 
the above, by which its soundness may be readily tested. 
They are the following : 

" 1. It is the will of God that all men should keep 
sober. 

" 2. God's will will be done. 

(c 3, Therefore all men do keep sober, and the tern- 



216 



Universalis:*! not of the Bible. [Part I, 



perance reformation is finished, just as sure as Universal- 
ists' arguments are sound. 

"1. It is God's will that all men should embrace the 
truth. 

" 2. God's will will be done. 

" 3. All men do not embrace Universalism ; therefore 
Universalism is not the truth. 

"This cannot be retorted upon us, because we hold 
that many things transpire contrary to the will of 
God." 

We will change the form of this fruitful syllogism, for 
it will answer almost every purpose : 

" 1. If the will of God is done in every act, and in 
every event, as the syllogism asserts, it follows that 
every thing that is done, and every thing that takes 
place, is in accordance with the divine will. 

"2. Murder, robbery, drunkenness, and whoredom all 
take place. 

"3. Therefore murder, robbery, drunkenness, and 
whoredom, are all in accordance with the blessed will 
of God." 

Once more : 

" 1. Universalists ought not to be opposed to the ful- 
fillment of the will of God. 

" 2. If the above Universalist syllogism be sound, 
murder, robbery, drunkenness, and whoredom transpire 
in fulfillment of the divine will. 

" 3. Therefore Universalists ought not to be opposed 
to murder, robbery, drunkenness, and whoredom." 

Again : 

" If God's will can but be done in every thing, it fol- 
lows that what does not take place is not according to 
the will of God. 

" All men do not pray, therefore it is not the will of 
God that all men should pray. 

66 All men do not believe the truth, therefore it is 



Sec. 85.] Univeksausm not of the Bible. 



217 



not the will of God that all men should believe the 
truth. 

" All men do not keep his commandments, therefore it 
is not the will of God that all men should keep his com- 
mandments." 

The Saviour said, (Matt, vii, 21.) " Not every one 
that saith unto me. Lord, Lord, shall enter into the king- 
dom of heaven ; hut he that doeth the will of my Father 
which is in heaven." Here we have proof that the will 
of God is not done in all cases. A host of such texts 
might be adduced were it needful. What is sin but a 
transgression of the divine law ? and what is that law 
but a transcript of the divine mind, or an expression of 
his will ? 

Thus these men array the God of truth against him- 
self. 

LXXXV. " He retaineth not his anger forever, be- 
cause he delighteth in mercy." Micah vii, 18. 

Says the author of the " Guide," p. 42, " A precious as- 
surance ! altogether at vaiiance with the doctrine of end- 
less misery." This forms one of tho-e arguments by 
which the faith of a certain class of minds receives its en- 
largement. The prophet predicts the desolation of Israel 
on account of the wickedness of the people. He is inter- 
ceding in their behalf, after which God is introduced, 
promising their future restoration to national privileges 
in this world. Then a chorus of Jews is introduced, sing- 
ing a hymn of thanksgiving, beginning with the verse 
of which this text is a part. The reader will see by ex- 
amination that this was not spoken of all men. nor of the 
future state, but of the Jewish people in this world, 
" the remnant of his heritage." But no matter for this, 
it can be woven in, as occasion may require, with other 
texts, to deceive the people. We might, with at least 
equal propriety, bring Isa. xxvii, 11, to disprove Univer- 



218 



UtflVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



salisra. It reads thus: "He that made them will not 
have mercy on them, and he that formed them will show 
them no favor." Here it is asserted of a certain class 
that God will not have mercy on them, and that he will 
show them no favor. How will this comport with the 
idea of God's endless mercy and favor to all men? 
Reader, is not our argument as sound as Mr. Whitte- 
more's ? 

LXXXYI. " God shall wipe away all tears from their 
eyes ; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, 
nor crying ; neither shall there be any more pain ; for 
the former things are passed away." Rev. xxi, 4. See 
also verses 7 and 8. 

Paraphrased in accordance with Universalist views, 
the passage reads thus : " God shall wipe away all 
tears from the eyes of the whole human family ; and to 
all there shall be no more death, neither shall they suf- 
fer any more sorrow, or crying, or pain; for the former 
things have passed away from the whole of Adam's 
posterity." But the reader will see at a glance that 
this happy state of things is not predicted of the whole 
human race, but of the inhabitants of the " New Jeru- 
salem," verse 2. "There shall be no more death." 
This, with Universalist divines, is a "kind of make- 
weight text to be throw T n in any time, like Lam. iii, 31, 
and 1 Cor. xv, 22 Mr. Whittemore has put it in capitals, 
and says, "Although we read in the Scriptures of the 
second death, yet if we read of thirty deaths it would 
be no argument against Universalis rn, since the time is 
to come when "there shall be xo more death." — 
Guide, p. 53. The substance of this, when connected 
with the facts in this case, is this : A certain class shall 
suffer no more death ; therefore, none of the human 
family shall suffer any more death ! Not very logical. 
But when is the happy state of things contained in the 



SeC. 87.] TTxi VERBALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 219 

text to take place ? Not In this world, as " none are 
saved from all moral evil here." — IT. 111. and Def., 
p. 261. "No man on earth is entirely free from sin." — 
JPage, on Matt, vii, 23. It is in the future, then, that 
the blessings named in the text are to be enjoyed. We 
too admit the future state reference of the passage, and 
we know, too, that if there is any meaning in language, 
it is descriptive of the bliss of the saints as distinguished 
from the state of the wicked, (ver. 8.) Inspiration, 
after describing the exemptions and bliss of saints, 
says, "He that overcometh shall inherit all things, 
(all the things just described ;) and I will be his God, 
and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbeliev- 
ing, and the abominable, and murderers, and whore- 
mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall 
have their part in the lake which burnetii with fire and 
brimstone; which is the second death," verses 7 and 8. 
It will be seen by examination that there is not a 
single mark of future reference in verse 4 that is not 
found in verse 8. They both refer to the future condi- 
tion of man, presenting two classes and conditions, 
according to character. One class are to experience 
" no more death ; " but the other are to suffer " the sec- 
ond death." One is freed from tears, sorrow, and pain ; 
the other " shall hare their part in the lake which burn- 
etii with fire and brimstone." Never was there a more 
gross perversion than using verse 4, or any part of it, to 
prove the salvation of all men. The fact that the 
system demands such work of its advocates to sus- 
tain it should be considered proof demonstrative 
that it is not of God. Reader, beware of the " second 
death." 

LXXXVII. "For it is impossible for those who were 
once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift," 
etc. Heb. vi, 4-6. 



220 Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 

The author of the "Guide," p. 197, labors to show 
that this passage cannot mean what it seems to mean, 
because "the Scriptures teach that all things are possi- 
ble with God," and "that all will admit that God can 
do any thing which does not involve in itself a neces- 
sary contradiction or impossibility." Very true, and 
the case named in the passage is just of that character. 
When the Bible declares that all things are possible 
with God, it is to be understood in a restricted sense ; 
for it is evident from the nature of God, and also from 
the Bible itself, that it is "impossible for God to lie," 
and that " he cannot deny himself." Kepentance is a 
work God has enjoined upon the sinner, without which 
he cannot be saved. But while none can repent with- 
out divine aid, it is also true that God as a moral gov- 
ernor cannot coerce men into repentance. It must be 
voluntary on the part of man, or it involves a contra- 
diction, arraying the Deity against himself by attribu- 
ting to him a work which he has enjoined upon the sin- 
ner, and which none but a sinner can perform. The 
apostle speaks (2 Tim. ii, 25) of God's giving repent- 
ance, by which we understand that he gives the means 
and opportunity, and not that he repents for the sinner. 
Man is not passive in this work, but an active agent, as 
the Bible and experience clearly show. But says the 
" Guide," " If a man becomes incapable of repentance 
he will be no longer a moral agent ; nor will he be 
under obligation to do that which he cannot." To this 
quibble we reply, that the responsibility of a man 
before God who has lost his moral agency, or power of 
right action, depends upon how he lost it. If a man in 
the providence of God becomes insane, independent of 
his voluntary action, justice declares him not responsi- 
ble. But if a man by his voluntary acts hardens his 
heart, sears his conscience, grieves the Spirit, and hurls 
his own reason from its throne, justice requires that 



Sec. 88.] Univeesalism kot of the Bible. 221 

such a man be held responsible for acts committed while 
in such a state. Is the man who voluntarily deprives 
himself of the means to sustain his own family in no 
way responsible for the poverty and wretchedness 
which may follow such an act? A man becomes 
beastly drunk, reason is dethroned, he burns his neigh- 
bor's buildings, and murders his own wife. Does not 
God hold him responsible for these acts ? Civil law, 
even, holds him responsible, for the good reason that he 
had no right to abuse his powers by drinking to intoxi- 
cation. God has given man powers as a moral being, 
but if he abuses them by acts of sin so as to destroy his 
reason, is it not just to conclude that God will hold him 
responsible in the day of judgment, not only for the 
evil he commits in such a state, but also for the good 
he fails to do, which he might otherwise have accom- 
plished? Most certainly it is. Again, it is said by 
the " Guide " that " Paul only meant that it was impos- 
sible for him, by his preaching to apostate Christians, 
to renew them again to repentance." Well, what is 
gained by this, supposing that it be admitted ? Does 
it prove that their renewal is possible from some other 
source ? Inspiration declares of such apostates that it 
is impossible, that is, they are past recovery ; it is im- 
possible for any instrumentality or agency " to renew 
them again unto repentance ; seeing they crucify to 
themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an 
open shame." But Universalism contradicts the Bible, 
and says it is possible. Which shall we credit, Univer- 
salism or the Bible. (See Sec. IV.) 

LXXXVin. " What must I do to be saved ? " Acts 
xvi, 30. 

Why does the jailer tremble and fall before Paul and 
Silas, proposing this important question ? Did he fear 
the Roman law ? This could not be, for that had not 



222 UxiVEESALIS^T NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I ? 

been violated ; and this he knew, for Paul had just said to 
him, " Do thyself no harm, for we are all here" Would 
he have consulted two poor missionaries of the cross if 
the Roman law was all he feared ? Then see the 
answer of Paul: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and thou shalt be saved." Was faith in Christ the 
way of salvation from the penalty of Roman laws? 
Faith in Christ was quite a sure way to incur that pen- 
alty. Paul had been whipped in the public streets of 
Philippi only the day before, and the jailer knew it ; 
and now Paul directs him to believe on Christ in order 
to escape the Roman law ! This is too absurd, even 
for Mr. Whitteniore; hence, in his " Guide," p. 175, he 
admits that the jailer in effect inquired, u What must I 
do to become a Christian?" But, lest it should be 
thought that he had any respect to the future world, a 
dust is raised about the word saved, and ten texts of 
Scripture are produced to prove most conclusively what 
no one ever denied, namely, that Christians are said to 
be saved in this world, a fact with which all Christians 
are perfectly familiar ; and what does it prove ? Does 
it prove that the jailer had no thoughts of eternity in 
the deep convictions he evinced? Much is said about 
universal salvation, which, of course, is to be experienced 
in the future state. Suppose we were to deny that 
there is any salvation in the future world, and then, to 
prove it, should make a great parade of texts to show 
that men are said to be saved in this world, would it be 
honest ? Tet this could be done with equal fairness. 
(Sec. LI.) The jailer was, without doubt, a believer in 
future retributions, for this doctrine was common not 
only among Jews, but also -among Gentiles, (Sec. 
CXXXI;) and it is highly probable that he heard the 
praying and singing of the apostles, and knew some- 
thing of their teachings ; these, together with the earth- 
quake and the Christian demeanor of the prisoners, 



Sec. 89.] Uhtversamsm not of the Bible. 



223 



were set home to his heart by the Holy Spirit. He now 
sees himself a sinner, and has such a discovery of bis 
awful exposure that he trembles, rushes in and falls 
down before Paul and Silas, and cries, "Sirs, what must 
I do to be saved ? " Faithful Christian ministers, in 
all ages of the Church, have witnessed the trembling 
power which sometimes seizes the guilty before God, in 
view of their lost condition. The jailer bears every 
mark of being strongly excited by fear, which com- 
pletely refutes the idea so much dwelt upon by Univer- 
salists, namely, that fear has nothing to do with making 
men Christians ; for observe, Mr. TThittemore admits 
that he desired at this crisis to become a Christian, and 
the history shows that he did become one. 

LXXXIX. " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ 
shall all be made alive." 1 Cor. xv, 22. 

In this section we purpose to examine those texts in 
1 Cor. xv which are involved in the controversy with 
Universalists, passing over those which have no particu- 
lar bearing upon the subject. As may be seen most 
clearly, the apostle is not proving how all men will be 
made holy and happy, but his subject is the resurrection 
of the body. To prove and illustrate this the chapter 
was written. It will be seen, too, that this was addressed 
to Christians, to "beloved brethren,'' and after proving 
the resurrection, he very beautifully illustrates and ex- 
plains what they, as Christians, might expect pertaining 
to their bodies in that state. This was called forth by 
the fact that some false teachers at Corinth denied the 
doctrine of the resurrecution of the body. In the first 
part of the chapter he proves the resurrection of Christ, 
and then shows the fatal consequences to the whole 
Christian system if it be a fact that Christ has not risen, 
as follows : u Xow. if Christ be preached that he rose 
from the dead, how say some among you that there is 



224 



Uniyersalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



no resurrection of the dead ? But if there be no resur- 
rection of the dead, then is Christ not risen ; and if Christ 
be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith 
is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of 
God ; because we have testified of God that he raised 
up Christ : whom he raised not up, if so be that the 
dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is Christ 
not raised. And if Christ be not raised, your faith is 
vain ; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are 
fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only 
we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miser- 
able." Ver. 12-19. 

Mr. Balfour (" Essays," p. 193) denies the immortality 
of the soul, and contends that none who die have any 
conscious existence until the resurrection, which is vet 
future, and brings in proof of this, ver. IS. That the 
apostle never designed to teach materialism in this pas- 
sage the reader will see by consulting the Scriptures 
referred to a few pages forward in this section. He is 
showing, from ver. 12 to ver. 19. the fatal consequences 
to the whole Christian system of denying the resurrec- 
tion of the dead. Some, it seems, admitted the resurrec- 
tion of Christ, while they denied that others would be 
raised. But the apostle shows them that consistency 
required that they discard the resurrection of Christ, and 
that they virtually did so by the doctrines they put 
forth. He then shows them that by occupying this 
ground they made Christ a deceiver and the apostles 
false witnesses, and if the Gospel could be thus stripped 
of the evidence it derives from the resurrection of its 
author, and the resurrection of the body be set aside, 
then every other doctrine pertaining to it must fall. 
Then the world must be left without Christianity, with- 
out any light respecting the future, and all must be as 
dark and dreary as Paganism. They had experienced 
present salvation from the guilt of sin through the atone- 



Sec. B9.] Univeesamsm not or the Bible, 



225 



merit, and some of their brethren had suffered all man- 
ner of indignities and had died most cruel deaths in hope 
of a future life of bliss. But the apostle shows that if 
the resurrection of Christ is false, then all other Christian 
doctrines were of no avail ; that their preaching was 
vain, and they M which had fallen asleep in Christ had 
perished,*' because they trusted in Christ to save them 
from their sins. But if he had not risen from the dead 
he was himself a sinner, having been guilty of deception 
and falsehood, and had himself gone to perdition, and 
could never save them from the same fate. Further- 
more, the doctrine of present justification was destroyed, 
for u your faith is vain, and ye are yet in your sins." 
Then, upon the principle that the Christian system is 
false, he shows the folly of those who, unlike some in our 
day who contend that conduct here takes no hold on the 
future state, were laboring and enduring with respect to 
a better world ; he says : " If in this life only we have 
hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." We 
see by these brief thoughts that the idea taught is not 
that there is no conscious existence unless the bodies of 
men are raised, but that a denial of the resurrection is 
equivalent to a rejection of the whole Gospel plan, and 
thus the world would be left without any hope or just 
conceptions respecting the future. The apostle con- 
tinues : " But now is Christ risen from the dead and be- 
come the first fruits of them that slept." Yer. 20. 

u Of them il< at slept" Are we to understand by this 
all mankind, or a particular class of persons ? The 
latter, as is quite evident. This sense is fixed by Yer. 
18 : u Then they which have fallen asleep in Christ" 
etc., that is, those who had died in his cause, perhaps as 
martyrs. The same class Paul names in 1 Thess. iv, 16 : 
" The dead in Christ shall rise first ; " and the same that 
John refers to Rev. xiv, 13 : " Blessed are the dead 
which die in the Lord/' The clause u Christ. the first 

15 



226 



Uniyeesalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



fruits," will be considered in connection with ver. 23 : 
" For since by man came death, by man came also the 
resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so 
in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his 
own order : Christ the first fruits ; afterward, they that 
are Christ's at his coming." Ver. 21-23. What death 
did Adam die, or what death was introduced by him ? 
" His death was simply moral ; he died to innocence ; 
there was nothing affected but his mind and heart ; no 
change took place in his moral or physical constitution." 
— U. III. and Def., p. 76. Bat in what sense do all die 
in Adam ? Some years since, while delivering a course 
of lectures in one of the villages of Maine, we gave a 
public call upon Universalists for information respecting 
their views upon ver. 22. We knew that this text was 
often used to prove their doctrine, but could find nothing 
explicit, in the many books from their authors we had in 
possession, to show how all die in Adam. The next 
w T eek an anonymous letter was received, supposed to be 
dictated by the Universalist minister of the place, in 
which we were informed that all men do not die in Adam, 
as we bathe in water or sail in a boat, but that Adam 
died to innocence, or died a moral death by sinning, and 
that all men by sin die as Adam did, and that by Christ 
all are to be made alive morally. According to this 
view, to die in Adam means simply to die as Adam did. 
Moral death, we suppose, is indicated Rom. viii, 6 : 
" For to be carnally minded is death." Also, Eph. ii, 1 : 
" Dead in trespasses and sins." Upon the hypothesis 
that a moral death and resurrection are intended, let us 
paraphrase the three texts and see what character is 
given the Saviour and his holy saints. " For since by 
Adam came moral death, by Christ came also the resur- 
rection of the morally dead. For as in Adam all die a 
moral death, even so in Christ shall all be made morally 
alive. But everv man in his own order in this resurrec- 



Sec. 89.] Uxiyersalism jSTOt of the Bible. 227 

tion from moral death to moral life : Christ the first 
fruits of the morally dead ; afterward, they of the mor- 
ally dead that are Christ's at his coming ! " And is it 
so ? Was Christ the immaculate, who " did no sin," 
" dead in trespasses and sins ? " Was he in his resur- 
rection " the first fruits of them that slept " in moral 
pollution ? And then are those who in the Scriptures 
are denominated Christ's morally dead ? No ; for " they 
that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with the affec- 
tions and lusts." Gal. v, 24. But to carry out the Uni- 
versalist view of a moral death and resurrection, the 
passage is made to teach that which is both blasphemous 
and absurd, namely, that Christ was the first fruits of 
those who are raised from moral death and pollution, 
and afterward those that are Christ's at his coming shall 
be raised from the same deplorable condition ! Says Mr. 
Skinner : " Perhaps there is no better way of detecting 
the fallacy of a doctrine than by looking at the difficul- 
ties into which it leads." — U. III. and Def., p. 171. We 
beg the reader to look at the difficulties into which Uni- 
versalis t interpretations lead in the subject under con- 
sideration. Adopt the truth that the death and resur- 
rection of the body constitute the apostle's theme, and 
all becomes plain and luminous in his reasoning. The 
reader need not be informed that ver. 22 is a text ever 
at hand to prove Universalism. This has, by the advo- 
cates of this dogma, been illustrated by scales. In the 
first scale is placed "As in Adam all die," then "even 
so " under an even beam ; and in the second scale, " In 
Christ shall all be made alive." The object of this is, 
to show that just as much was gained by Christ as was 
lost by Adam ; and this is doubtless true in the sense of 
the text. Now, if we can ascertain what is in the first 
scale, we can soon learn what is in the second. To get 
at this, let us inquire about what was Paul writing. Is 
he showing how all men became sinners in consequence 



228 



UTTERS AXISM NOT OF THE JBlBLE. [Part I, 



of Adam's transgression, and how all men will be made 
holy and happy by Christ's obedience ? Nothing of the 
kind. He is not illustrating the plan of salvation at all. 
Is Paul calling the attention of his brethren to the sub- 
ject of spiritual death and spiritual life ? By no means. 
This chapter, as all must see, was written to prove and 
illustrate the resurrection of the body, and this very nat- 
urally led him to show how men became subject to tem- 
poral death, which he does thus : 16 For since by man, 
(that is, Adam,) came death, (that is, the death of the 
body) by man — (that is, Christ) came also the resurrec- 
tion of the dead." Ver. 21. " For as in Adam (the man 
alluded to) all die, even so in Christ shall all be made 
alive," that is, shall be raised from the dead. Ver. 22. 
" But every man in his own order ; Christ the first fruits, 
afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." Ver. 23. 
No man, it would seem, need mistake the subject. It is 
not a resurrection of all men to holiness and happiness 
in heaven ; it is not a resurrection to spiritual life, but 
the resurrection of the bodies of men is the apostle's sub- 
ject. He teaches us most clearly too, by implication, that 
all will not be Christ's at his coming to raise the dead. 

It must be obvious to all that the death of the body 
is taught by the first member of the text, and the resur- 
rection of the body by the second, and nothing more. It 
is worthy of remark that it is said (Phil, iii, 21) of 
Christ, when he shall come to raise the dead, that he 
"shall change our vile body;" but it is nowhere said 
he shall change our vile soul ; and we have yet to learn 
that anywhere in the Bible any thing is said equivalent 
to it. But suppose we go directly against the whole 
scope of the apostle's reasoning here, and admit that 
spiritual death is here intended ; we then ask, Do Uni- 
versalists hold that all men were exposed to endless 
spiritual death or misery by dying in Adam, and that 
all are to be, by Christ, raised to endless bliss? This 



Sec. 89.] Untyersalism not of the Bible. 229 

they must admit, or the scale containing the first mem- 
ber of the text kicks the beam at once, and the "even 
so " is even nonsense. Will Universalists admit that 
Adam's sin affected his own future state, or that of his 
posterity? If they do, what becomes of that much- 
cherished notion among them, that man's conduct here 
takes no hold on eternity'? for if Adam's conduct took 
hold on the future state, then does the conduct of all 
men, inasmuch as the principles of God's moral govern- 
ment are the same respecting all men as moral beings. 
There is no avoiding this. But, on the other hand, if 
the death, by Adam, takes no hold on the future state., 
then the life, by Christ, takes no hold on the future state, 
for it is " evex so." 

It is well known that modern Universalists stoutly con- 
tend against the idea that mankind are at all exposed to a 
future hell either by Adam's or their own sins. Just to 
show how the use they made of this passage, when 
properly considered, wars with their own theory, let us 
inquire, What do they contend is taught by the last mem- 
ber of the text, or what is in the second scale ? We are 
told, with great confidence, that it contains Universal- 
ism. Well, what is Universalism ? It is this : All men 
by the resurrection will he raised to endless bliss. No 
Universalist will complain of this definition. This, then, 
is what the second scale contains. Now what must the 
first scale contain to balance it ? Observe, it is " even 
so." It must contain, then, that which is directly op- 
posite. Well, what is that ? It is endless misery, as all 
must see. There is no avoiding this, as the text is an- 
tithetical, strictly so. From this view of their interpre- 
tation of the last member of the text we arrive at the 
following conclusion : by Adam, all were exposed to 
endless misery ; by Christ, all are saved from endless 
misery. Now modern Universalists know that it would 
be fatal to their system to admit that men were ever ex- 



230 



Univeksalism not of the Bible. 



[Part I, 



posed to endless misery, therefore they will not adopt 
the conclusion, although it grows legitimately from the 
premises they themselves furnish. Error is always in- 
consistent with itself. The doctrine of the text, as we 
have seen, is this : the temporal death of all men by 
Adam, the resurrection of the bodies of all by Christ, 
and thus the scales are even. 

It will be seen from the above that this text no more 
teaches the salvation of all men than it does the restora- 
tion of the Jews to Palestine. 

That some of our readers may have a better under- 
standing of Universalist sentiments, and also see how they 
war with the Scriptures, we shall present the views of 
two, who have been reckoned among their ablest divines, 
upon the resurrection. Mr. Balfour contends that man 
has no immortal soul, and can have no patience what- 
ever with the idea of disembodied spirits. Hear him 
upon this point : " Man comes into the world and dies 
similar to the brute creation. God made man wiser than 
the beasts of the field or the fowls of the air, and he 
has given him a promise of a resurrection from the dead ; 
but to say he has given him an immortal so.ul, to be 
happy or miserable in a disembodied state, is traveling 
beyond the record." — Essay, p. 97. 

His doctrine is, that none that have died since the 
world began have now any conscious existence, neither 
will they have until the resurrection, then all will be 
raised to a state of immortal bliss irrespective of charac- 
ter here. This event he considers yet future. This ma- 
terialism of his is abundantly refuted by the following 
Scriptures, to which the reader is referred, to say nothing 
of many more texts: Eccles. xii, 7; Matt, x, 28; Luke 
xvi, 19-31 ; xx, 37, 38 ; xxiii, 43-46 ; xxiv, 36-40, where 
our Lord sanctions the doctrine of disembodied spirits; 
John xi, 26; viii, 51; Acts vii, 59; 2 Cor. xii, 1-4; 
v 9 1-9; Phil i, 20-25; 2 Pet. i, 13-15. 



Sec. 89.] Universalism not of the Bible. 



231 



The materialism of Mr. Balfour, we conclude, has never 
been very extensively received by the denomination, 
for such is the state of the human heart, while under the 
influence of modern Universalism, that the rule seems to 
be readily adopted that no doctrine can be true which 
does not afford its recipients the most pleasurable sensa- 
tions respecting the future whatever may be their charac- 
ter here. 

In this fact is found a reason why the doctrine of a 
limited future punishment has been so generally reject- 
ed which was at one time held by the denomination. 
For the same reason Mr. Balfour's views have not ob- 
tained extensively among them. Errors of as great mag- 
nitude as Mr. B.'s are readily received by their people 
if they are only in keeping with their desires ; but his 
errors have the misfortune not to be of this stamp. 
They desire to be happy immediately at death ; but 
there is something very repulsive in the thought of going 
into a state of nonentity, perhaps for thousands of years, 
before heavenly bliss can be enjoyed. Hence their 
teachers, who are always accommodating men upon such 
subjects, and are always disposed to impart peace to 
troubled minds, have sought out an invention by which 
all men are to enter into bliss immediately when they 
die. So far as we can learn from their books and papers, 
the ideas which prevail most extensively among Univer- 
salists at the present respecting the resurrection are 
that it is not general, but successive, or as some say, pro- 
gressive, and that the human body will never be raised. 
This resurrection, they conclude, has been going on 
from the time of Adam down to the present. Some talk 
of it as though it took place at death ; and others, as if 
to get rid of certain difficulties growing out of a death 
resurrection, would have a space of insensibility between 
death and the resurrection of some days' duration. The 
following extract is taken from a sermon by Mr. J. B. 



232 



Uniyeesalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



Dods, who has been one of the most noted divines in the 
order, and from all we can gather we think it contains 
very nearly the sentiments of many of the Universalists 
upon this subject : 

"We have already shown that the resurrection of the 
dead was to be at the sound of the last trump ; and as 
that trump commenced sounding at the end of the Jew- 
ish age, when Christ came in his kingdom, I deem it 
sufficient to establish the fact that the dead are contin- 
ually rising in this last, this gospel day. But the ques 
tion presents itself, Were any of the human family 
raised immortal before that period ? To this question I 
give an affirmative answer. I firmly believe that the 
dead have been rising immortal from Adam to the pres- 
ent day, for God has never changed the established 
order of the universe. I believe that the dead are 
raised without any miracle, in the common acceptation 
of that term, as much as I believe that we are born, and 
die, not by a miracle, but according to that constitution 
of things which God has immutably established from 
the beginning. I believe this doctrine of Christ to be 
founded upon the unchanging principles of philosophy, 
but so mysterious that man in his present existence can- 
not comprehend the subtle causes and effects by which 
he shall put on immortality." — Trumpe%l$6. 718. (See 
Section CXL.) 

These views are certainly more anti-scriptural than 
Mr. Balfour's, for with all his absurdities we must give 
him the credit of one correct thought, namely, a future 
general resurrection ; but in these we cannot discover 
even one truth. These views war with the Scriptures, 
(verses 20, 23,) which declare Christ to be the first fruits. 
According to this hypothesis the first fruits appeared 
many ages before Christ, for men had been rising from 
the dead ever since Cain killed Abel, or four thousand 
years before the Saviour's resurrection. The apostle, 



SeC. 89.] UxiVEKSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 233 



as if he here foresaw that some would attempt to teach 
that the phrase " first fruits " has reference to rank and 
not to the order of the resurrection, has established the 
fact that Christ is the first in the immortal resurrection, 
by language which cannot be frittered away. In Col. 
i, 18 he calls him "the first born from the dead, 3 ' and 
in Acts xxvi, 22, 23 he says : 

" Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue 
unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, say- 
ing none other things than those which the prophets 
and Moses did say should come : 

" That Christ should suffer, and that he should be 
the first that should rise from the dead, and should show 
light unto the people and to the Gentiles." 

Here Christ is declared by the inspired apostle to 
be " the first that should rise from the dead." A pro- 
gressive resurrection stands opposed to those Scriptures 
which speak of the event as yet future. See Mark xii, 
23, 24 ; Luke xiv, 14 ; John v, 28, 29 ; Acts xxiv, 15 ; 
1 Thess. iv, 14-17. Others might be named, but these 
texts are enough to establish our point. Again : This 
resurrection is to take place at the coming of Christ. 
1 Thess. iv, 14-17; 1 Cor. xv, 23. Did Christ come at 
the resurrection, thousands of years before he assumed 
human nature ? Does he now come at the death of 
every individual ? Are the Scriptures referred to, and 
other similar ones, fulfilled in this way ? Preposterous ! 
Mr. Balfour, in contending with those who hold that 
the resurrection takes place at death, has the fol- 
lowing : 

" When shall the resurrection of the dead take place ? 
Some say it takes place at every man's death. But 
certainly Martha did not think so, for she said concern- 
ing Lazarus, 4 1 know that he shall rise again in the res- 
urrection at the last day. 5 She probably borrowed the 
phrase last day from what she heard our Lord say, 



234: 



UNIVERSALIS}! NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



(John vi, 39, 40-45,) where he four times spoke of the 
resurrection as being in the last day. If the resurrec- 
tion is at a man's death, she ought to have said, £ I 
know that he rose four days ago,' for Lazarus had been 
four days dead. But she spoke of the resurrection and 
the last day as simultaneous events. It appears to me 
that the resurrection, the last day, the period called the 
end, and the coming of Christ, all refer to the same 
period. But how many years, or ages, until it arrives, 
the Bible, so far as I understand it, does not inform us, 
and I have no desire to be wise above what is written." 
— Essay, p. 179. 

Again, in speaking of Christ's conversation with the 
Sadducees, he says : 

" In concluding my remarks on these passages I 
would merely notice, that if the resurrection takes 
place at a man's death, both our Lord and the Saddu- 
cees speak as if they had been of a different opinion. 
The Sadducees speak of it as a future event, thus : 4 In 
the resurrection therefore when they shall rise.' So did 
our Lord, for he says : fi For when they shall rise from 
the dead, they neither marry nor are given in mar- 
riage.' But would either of them have spoken in this 
manner had they believed that every man is raised at 
his death ? It is easily perceived that this would have 
entirely altered the shape of the Sadducees' question." 
— Essay, p. 187. 

Mr. Balfour's arguments upon this point are sound, 
as all must see. 

Progressionists of the present day, we conclude, would 
object to the idea that men are fully resurrected at 
death. Their doctrine, if we can understand them, is 
this : By death the spirit and the body are disconnected. 
The spirit then enters the resurrection state, not changed 
at all in its character by death, but immediately finds 
itself in greatly improved circumstances, freed from the 



See. 89.] Universalis^ xot of the Bible. 



235 



corruptions and temptations of the flesh, where " the 
same means, and in the same way,'' will be used for its 
salvation that were employed before death, such as in- 
struction, entreaty, and punishment ; the punishment not 
for sins committed before death, but fur misdoings 
in the resurrection state, as it is asserted that all sins 
committed in this world are punished in this world. 
How long this resurrecting process will continue before 
the soul is completely raised to perfect bliss we are not 
informed, but Mr. Fletcher thinks that such are the fa- 
vorable circumstances, that the results of this discipline 
may be almost immediate. (Sec. CXL.) So this resur- 
rection is going on, and new cases coming as fast as 
death shall pass them along. But where are the Script- 
ures for this teaching and flogging process in the resur- 
rection ? Mediums must have revealed it. The Bible 
has not. So the body in any proper sense of the term is 
never to be raised ! 

But we ask, Was not the resurrection of Christ the 
pattern of ours as well as the pledge ? Was not Christ's 
literal body raised ? or was his only the resurrection of 
the spirit ? Said he to his astonished disciples after his 
resurrection, " Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not 
flesh and bones as ye see me have." Surely, if the 
Scriptures (Luke xxiv, 37-43) do not teach that the 
Saviours material body, the same body that died upon 
the cross, and was put into the sepulcher, was raised, 
what can they be relied upon as teaching ? 

Another thought. Did the resurrection of Christ 
take place when he died ? Certainly not. 

Should it be thought that a progressive resurrection 
militates no more against the idea of Christ's being the 
first fruits, than the resurrections which took place when 
the Saviour was upon earth, such as that of the widow's 
son and Lazarus, we answer, These have no connection 
with the resurrection taught by Christianity. In these 



i36 



Uniyersalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



cases there was divine power exerted, or a miracle per- 
formed, to restore natural life in this world. This is a 
very different thing from the Christian resurrection, by 
which all men are to be raised, and the righteous to be 
glorified with their Saviour in heaven. We know not 
that any have ever taught that these form a part of the 
Christian or immortal resurrection. 

Again: Universalists have written much to prove 
that Christ came at the destruction of Jerusalem. Will 
they give ver. 23 such a reference ? If so, then the res- 
urrection took place and death was destroyed at the 
destruction of Jerusalem ! 

" Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered 
rip the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall 
have put down all rule, and all authority, and power." 
Ver. 24. 

" Then cometh the end," that is, when Christ shall 
come to raise the dead. By " the kingdom " is to be 
understood Christ's mediatorial kingdom, which shall 
be restored to God the Father when he (Christ) 
shall have put down all rule, and authority, and power 
which opposed itself to his government. (See on 
verses 27, 28-.) 

" For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under 
his feet." Ver. 25. This is a willing subjection say 
Universalists, and they will have it that it surely indi- 
cates the salvation of all men. But we see nothing 
whatever to warrant such an assumption. Remark, he 
must reign, not till he makes all men holy and happy, 
but till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 
This is an allusion to the practice of conquerors, who 
trod upon the necks of their conquered enemies. This, 
however, was preparatory to their destruction, and not 
to their restoration, as may be seen Josh, x, 24-26. 

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is de&th,' 5 
Verse 26. Or, as some would render it § "The last 



Sec. 89.] Uniyersalism not of the Bible. 



237 



enemy, death, shall be destroyed." Keep in mind the 
apostle's subject, which is not a moral resurrection, and 
consequently it is not moral death which shall be de- 
stroyed. His theme is the resurrection of the body ; 
hence, the death spoken of is animal death, or the death 
of the body. What Paul asserts is simply this : " Death 
the last enemy of oar physical nature, shall be destroy- 
ed by the resurrection. But what has this to do with 
making all the race holy and happy in heaven? Just 
nothing. 

" For he hath put all things under his feet. But when 
he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that 
he is excepted which did put all things under him. And 
when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall 
the Son also be subject unto him that put all things 
under him, that God may be all in all. Verses 27, 28. 

To say that the subjection named is a spiritual and 
willing one of all moral beings, is taking for granted 
what should be proved. It is mere assumption. When 
a sovereign has subdued his rebellious subjects, are we 
to understand by it that all are to be restored to favor, 
that none will suffer ? A strange conclusion that. 
Great stress has been laid upon that part of the text 
which says, "That God may be all in all." But it 
should be remembered that it is said of Christ (Eph. 
i, 23) that " he filleth all in all;" also, in Col. iii, 11, 
" Christ is all and in all." Christ is now sovereign, as 
he has not yet delivered the kingdom to God the Father ; 
and in the government of it he is now " all in all," yet 
millions are unsaved. This being the case, the sovereign- 
ty may be transferred to the Father, and he become all 
in all in the sense of government, which is the sense in- 
tended, and still a portion of the human race may re- 
main unsaved. Observe: it is said, " Then shall the Son 
be subject unto him, that God may be all in all ; " which 
implies that if the Son should not deliver up the king- 



238 Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



dom and become subject, God could not be all in all 
in the sense intended in the text. This plainly shows us 
that reference is had to authority in this passage, and 
not to the salvation of all men, and that by God's being 
all in all, nothing more is meant than that he will then 
govern the universe in his own person, as he did before 
all power in heaven and earth was transferred to Christ. 
Matt, xxviii, 18. Thus we see the passage yields no sup- 
port to Universalism. 

" But some man will say, How are the dead raised up ? 
and with what body do they come ?" Verse 35. This is 
not the language of a sincere inquirer after truth, but of 
an objector. It is the language of one who intended to 
make the most direct and positive denial of the doc- 
trine. From the argument of the apostle it appears 
that the objection was based upon the fact that the 
body after death becomes decomposed, and mingles with 
other elements, as if the objector had said, The dead 
can never be raised up, for the thing is unreasonable and 
impossible, as the body becomes decomposed, its matter 
is scattered and its identity is destroyed. Now, this is 
in substance the reasoning of a large portion of Univer- 
salists at the present time against the resurrection of 
the body. 

Prof. Bush, a few years since, came to their aid, and 
has written a book against the resurrection of the body, 
in which he says, (p. 40) : " The resurrection of the 
body, if my reasoning and expositions are well founded, 
is not a doctrine of revelation." Again he says, (p. 70) : 
t4 The resurrection body is that part of our present being 
to which the essential life of the man pertains." Ct It 
constitutes the inner essential vitalities of our present 
bodies, and it lives again in another state because it 
never dies." Again, (p. 170) : " Let it (the resurrection) 
be understood as an event which transpires with every 
individual believer as soon as he leaves the body." 



Sec. 89.] UXIYEESALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



239 



We have rarely if ever found, even among Universal- 
ist writers, more barefaced skepticism connected with a 
professed regard for the Bible than is found in the book 
from which these extracts are taken. Every thing in the 
Bible must bow to his rational deductions, as he calls 
them. Speaking of the body raised, he says : " It lives 
again in another state, because it never dies." If we look 
at this chapter, and elsewhere in the Bible where the 
resurrection is taught, we shall find that it is the dead 
that are raised. We think it would puzzle Mr. Bush, 
with all his philosophy, to show how they are raised 
from the dead who never die ! We have shown on verse 
23 the antiscriptural character of the notion that the 
resurrection takes place when a man dies, which need 
not be repeated here. The resurrection is not to be ac- 
counted for upon philosophical principles, but is an effect 
produced by the immediate agency of God. It is to be 
considered in the light of a miracle and in no other, and 
certainly the man who lays any claim to a belief in 
Christianity must admit that God can perform a miracle. 
Then " why should it be thought a thing incredible with 
you, that God should raise the dead? " Acts xxvi, 8. 

What though the body be decomposed, and form new 
compositions, or be scattered to the four winds, is not 
Almighty power and skill adequate to the task of raising 
the same identical body ? a Cannot the chemist take a 
piece of gold coin into his laboratory, file it to powder, 
dissolve it with acids, alloy it with other metals, grind 
it again to powder, throw it into the fire, and mingle it 
with soot, ashes, and charcoal, and yet bring out the 
same fine gold ? And cannot he mold it again in the 
same die, and be perfectly sure that it is the very same 
gold ? And is the God of all power and wisdom, whose 
vast laboratory is the universe, less skillful than the 
creatures he has made ? And cannot he, who is intimate- 
ly present to every particle of matter, who knows every 



240 



UXIYEESALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



particle by name, and whose power has brought every 
particle into being, collect together again the scattered 
fragments of the human frame, although mingled with 
the elements, and driven to the four winds of heaven ? 
May we not reply to those making this objection to the 
resurrection of the body, e Ye do err, not knowing the 
Scriptures, nor Xhe power of God.' 1 " — Bishop Kingsley. 

"Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened 
except it die : and that which thou sowest," etc. Verses 
39-49. Paul answers the objection named verse 35, and 
says : " Thou fool ! objectest against the resurrection of 
the body, because it is dead, and decomposed, and 
mingled with the dust. But your own experience shall 
condemn you; for the very seed you sow, whether wheat 
or other grain, never rises out of the ground except it 
die and become decomposed, the very objection you al- 
lege against the resurrection of the bodv. You talk of 
the body as being a mass of loathsome corruption. But 
even the grain you sow becomes the same in this respect. 
But you do not sow the body that shall be, as to this 
circumstance, but naked grain which putrefies in the 
earth ; but God giveth it a body such as pleases him, 
differing as to the circumstances just mentioned, but 
composed of the same matter. It comes forth from cor- 
ruption new and beautiful. So is the resurrection of the 
dead. The body that is sown or buried in the earth is 
not the same body that rises again, as to its frailty and 
tendency to corruption and dissolution, though com- 
posed of the same matter ; for (verses 42-44) " it is sown 
in corruption ," in a state of decay; "it is raised in incor- 
ruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. 
It is sown in weakness ; it is raised in poicer. It is sown 
a natural body," the subject of all these weaknesses ; "it 
is raised a spiritual body," subject to none of them. 
For " there is a natural body," namely, that which was 
sown, u and there is a spiritual body," namely, that 



Set. 89.] Uniyeesalism not of the Bible. 2-il 

which rises again, very different as to its circumstances, 
but composed of the same substance. This Yv r e conceive 
to be the true state of the apostle's argument, without 
ever being: intended to give the least sanction to the 
" germ " doctrine. Any comparison may be tortured 
and spoiled by tracing analogies which were never in- 
tended. The point of comparison is a state of decay 
and corruption in both the grain and the body, and the 
coming forth out of a state of corruption to new life and 
vigor. It was God who gave the grain such a body as 
pleased him ; and the God that could do the one could 
do the other. "It is sown in corruption, it is raised in 
incorruption." What is sown in corruption ? Why the 
dead body, carrying out the metaphor of the grain. "It 
is raised in incorruption" What is raised in incorrup- 
tion? Why that which was sown in corruption, name- 
ly, the body. What else was sown in corruption ? Was 
the resurrection body of the new theory ever sown or 
buried in corruption ? It was never sown or buried at 
all, for " it escapes from the body before it is consigned 
to the dust." It never was corruptible at all ; for " it is 
immortal in its own nature." It was never dead at all ; 
for " it lives in another state, because it never dies." It 
never had any body at all ; " it is only called a body be- 
cause of the poverty of human language." " It is sown 
in dishonor, it Is raised in glory." What is sown in dis- 
honor ? Why the body, in a state of dissolution, when 
it becomes food for worms. " It is raised in glory." 
What is raised in glory ? Why that which was sown, 
or buried, in dishonor, namely, the body. " It is sown in 
weakness, it is raised in power." What is raised in 
power? Why that which was sown in weakness, namely, 
the body. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a 
spiritual body." What is raised a spiritual body ? 
Why chat which was sown a natural body. What else 
is sown or buried but the natural body ? It is the same 

16 



242 



Universalis:.! not of the Bible. [Part I, 



natural body which becomes changed to a spiritual 
body by the resurrection from the dead." — Bishop 
King shy. 

Bishop Kingsley, in the work from which this extract 
is taken, is combating the denial of the resurrection of 
the body by Professor Bush ; hence, some of the points 
which have a bearing upon the Universalis controversy 
are unnoticed. TTe add a few thoughts. 

The apostle in this passage is treating upon the 
spiritual corporeity of the resurrection body, which dif- 
fers radically from flesh and blood, and is contrasting it 
with the gross animal putrefactive corporeity of the 
present state. It- has been asserted that by "the dead," 
(ver. 35.) all the dead are meant. But admitting that 
the apostle puts into the mouth of the objector the ques- 
tion, " How are all the dead raised up ? " it would by no 
means follow that what is said in tbe rest of the chapter 
is true of all men. But it is not admitted that the phrase 
u the dead'' necessarily means all the dead. If Univer- 
salists contend that it does, let them never refer Rev. 
xx, 12, 13, where the expression occurs four times, to 
Jerusalem's destruction again. (" Guide," p. 240.) The 
sense is to be determined by the connection in which the 
expression is found. It is obvious that Paul means by 
"the dead " those who had fallen asleep in Christ, (ver. 
18,) who are Christ's at his coming, (ver. 23.) What 
folio vs was addressed to iC brethren," and the use of the 
pronoun ice, as we find it, shows us that he was speaking 
of Christians only. 

" It is raised in glory" Are we instructed by this 
that all men, the wicked as well as the righteous, are to 
be raised in glory '? This is the assumption, but it is 
without proof. The proof is all to the contrary. Ob- 
serve : The resurrection named in this chapter is to take 
place at the coming of Christ. (Ver. 23.) That all men 
are not to be raised to glory at Christ's coming is 



SCC. 89.] UXIYERSALTSM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



243 



evident from 1 Thess. i, 7-10, where a marked distinc- 
tion is made between Christ's saints and the wicked. 
(Sec. XLI.) 

We are not to make the inspired apostle contradict 
himself. In Acts xxiv, 15, speaking of the Pharisees, 
who were accusing him of heresy, in repelling the charge 
he says : "And have hope toward God, which they them- 
selves allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the 
dead, both of the just and unjust." Now, what did the 
Pharisees allow ? Did they allow that all men w r ould 
be raised in glory ? By no means. They held that the 
righteous only would be raised in glory ; and as Paul 
declares he believed with them upon this point, he of 
course is teaching nothing contrary to this in the chaptei 
under examination. (Sec. X.) 

We must not contradict the Son of God. Where has 
he ever informed us that all shall be raised in glory? 
Nowhere. But he has informed us that the wicked 
shall be raised to damnation, (John v, 29,) which is quite 
another thing. Where, in all the Bible, is it to be found 
that all men are to be glorified with Christ at the resur- 
rection ? It is not to be found ; but wherever the sub- 
ject is named, it is confined to saints. Take the follow- 
ing, (Col. iii, 4 :) " When Christ, who is our life, shall 
appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." 
Ye. Who ? All men ? No ; but Christians, as may 
be seen by the context, (Rom. viii, 17 :) l If so be that 
we suffer with him, that we may be gloyified together" 
This, too, is spoken of Christians, and none else, (Phil, 
iii, 20, 21:) " For our conversation is in heaven; from 
whence w r e look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ : 
who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned 
like unto his glorious body." Here again the same idea 
is presented, namely : That Christians are those who are 
to be glorified with Christ when he shall come to raise 
the dead. Observe, too, it is not the vile soul which is 



244 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



to be changed, but the vile body, and this agrees with 
the subject of this chapter. As, then, the righteous dead 
only are the subjects of this glorification, nothing is 
gained by it for the doctrine of Universalism. 

ct Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood can- 
not inherit the kingdom of God," etc. Ver. 50-52. Here 
we learn that " flesh and blood cannot inherit the king- 
dom of God ; " that is, in its frail, perishing state, hence 
the need of a change. But what shall become of those 
who are still living when Christ shall come to raise the 
dead? Paul reveals the mystery. "We shall not all 
sleep, (that is, all will not die,) but we shall all be changed 
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye." The idea is, 
that the change that will pass upon the bodies of the 
living will make them precisely like those of the dead 
after the resurrection. It will be seen, too, that the 
change and resurrection are simultaneous events, which 
forever destroys the doctrine of a progressive resurrec- 
tion. Paul speaks of the same resurrection, 1 Thess. iv, 
14-17. The reader will find this transcribed in Sec. 
XXVI, also a quotation from Mr. Whittemore, admit- 
ting that it refers to Christ's coming to raise the dead. 

In comparing 1 Thess. iv, 14-17 with this chapter we 
find the following points of resemblance : 

1. Cor. The coming of Christ is taught. Ver. 23. 
Thess. "We which are alive and remain unto the 

coming of the Lord." Ver. 15. 

2. Cor. The resurrection of the pious dead is the theme. 

Ver. 52. 

Thess. " The dead in Christ shall rise." Ver. 16. 

3. Cor. In stating the order, they that are Christ's are 

to be raised first. Ver. 23. 
Thess. The dead in Christ shall rise first. Ver. 16. 

4. Cor. The death of the body is called a sleep. Ver. 51. 
Thess. " Them also which sleep in Jesus shall God 

bring with him." Ver. 14. 



Sec. 89.] Uniyeesalism not of the Bible. 245 

5. Cor. The bodies of the living saints are to be changed 

when Christ shall come. Ver. 52. 
Thess. "Then we which are alive and remain shall 
be caught up together with them." Ver. 17. 

6. Cor. The change of the living and the resurrection 

of the dead are to take place instantly at the 
coming of Christ and the sound of the trump, 
Ver. 52, 

Thess. " The Lord himself shall descend from heaven 
with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and 
with the trump of God." Ver. 16. 

No man can well mistake the apostle. He is describ 
ing the same event in one epistle that he is in the other. 
How utterly at variance is this description with the doc- 
trine that every man is raised when he dies. Some have 
asserted that all men are to be changed in the twinkling 
of an eye (ver. 52) from sin to holiness. This change is 
not predicated of all men, and if it were, it would prove 
nothing in favor of such a view, for it is not the soul 
which is to be changed, but the body. But Christians 
are the class the apostle is speaking of. 

" For this corruptible must put on incorruption," etc. 
Verses 53, 54. In these verses we learn that when the 
saints are raised this corruptible mortal body will 
put on incorruption and immortality, and in this will 
be fulfilled " the saying that is written, Death is swal- 
lowed up in victory." What death ? Why the death 
of the body, which is corruptible and mortal, as the whole 
connection shows. How false the notion that the body 
is never to be raised ; for what is this corruptible and 
mortal to be raised if it is not the body ? 

"O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is 
thy victory ? The sting of death is sin," etc. Verses 
55-57. Here death is personified, and is said to have 
a sting, which is sin. What is meant by this ? Its 
most obvious meaning is this : Sinners fear to die be- 



246 



Universalis^ not of the Blble. [Part I, 



cause of their sins. The tormenting fear of death, then, 
produced by sin, is its sting. But we ask why, upon 
Universalist principles, should the vilest wretch in crea 
tion fear death ? This theory asserts that " So far as ad- 
mission to endless glory is concerned, the saint and sin- 
ner stand on a perfect level." — IT. III. and Def., p. 266. 

So we see that the most polluted sinner is just as well 
prepared for death, so far as the future is concerned, as 
the most holy saint, and has in reality no more to fear. 
This one idea, " the sting of death is sin," when properly 
considered, overthrows of itself the no future punishment 
theory. This theory stands directly opposed to the idea 
that the sting of death is sin, and therefore must be 
false. The apostle exclaims, " Thanks be to God, which 
giveth us the victory," etc. Us. Who ? All men ? 
No, it is Christians he is speaking of. The Progression- 
ists do not agree with this view in regard to immediate 
and perfect equality after death, yet their theory holds 
out to the ungodly strong inducements to exchange 
worlds, inasmuch as death delivers them from all the 
evils of the flesh, and places them in much more favor- 
able and sure circumstances for attaining complete salva- 
tion. This being so, the ungodly have nothing in reality 
to lose, but very much to gain, by death. To minds thus 
illuminated death can have no sting, even though they 
be all covered with moral pollution ! (Sec. CXL.) 

" Therefore, my beloved brethren," etc. Ver. 58. This 
verse closes up the apostle's argument, and in it he con- 
nects man's conduct in this world with his eternal state ; 
for in referring to what he had been saying concerning 
the resurrection of the righteous dead he says : " There- 
fore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, immovable, 
always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch 
as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord." 

This exhortation harmonizes with the apostle's own 
practice, who was willing to sacrifice every worldly con^ 



Sec. 89.] Untversalism not of the Bible. 



247 



sideration " if," says he, " I might by any means attain 
to the resurrection of the dead." Phil, iii, 11. What 
did he mean by this? Did he fear that he would not 
be raised at all ? That cannot be it, for he has declared 
(Acts xxiv, 15) most positively that he believed in the 
resurrection of all men. It was the blissful resurrection 
of the just to which he aspired. What should we think 
of a Universalist minister in our time who, in speaking 
of his labors and sacrifices, should assign as a reason for 
his so doing his anxiety u to attain to the resurrection 
of the dead ? " What should we think were he to ex- 
hort others to labor and steadfastness in reference to a 
future state ? Think ? Why we should think he was 
either playing the hypocrite or that he had renounced 
his TJniversalism. Yet Paul is called a Universalist ! 

We have thus passed through that portion of this 
chapter which treats of the resurrection of the body. 
This is called the Magna Charta of TJniversalism. But 
where is that doctrine taught in it ? Where is it once 
said that all shall be saved in the resurrection, or that 
which is equivalent to it? The place cannot be shown; 
but, on the contrary, it lies with great weight against 
certain doctrines advocated by Universalists with great 
zeal, as the following will show : 

1. It is asserted in this chapter that " By man came 
death." But TJniversalism teaches that man was created 
mortal and would have died if he had never sinned, and 
so death is attributed to God and not to man, and thus 
the apostle is contradicted. 

2. Universalists very generally discard the resurrec- 
tion of the body. But Paul teaches it most explicitly in 
this chapter, as we have shown. 

3. Universalists very generally teach a progressive 
resurrection ; that men have been rising from Adam to 
the present time, But in this chapter it is represented 
as instantaneous. 



248 



UxiVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part T, 



4. Universalists teach that all will he Christ's in the 
resurrection. But the apostle speaks of those who u are 
Christ's at his coming," thus making a distinction be- 
tween those who are his and those who are not. 

5. Universalists very generally deny the second per- 
sonal advent of Christ to raise the dead. But Paul 
teaches it, as we have seen. (Sec. XLI.) 

6. One form of Universal ism which has been exten- 
sively propagated in the order teaches that " As there 
is no intimation of any difference of situation, or any 
distinction in the plenitude of their blessedness, we are 
authorized to believe that the resurrection state is one 
of equality." — Scrip. Doc, p. 42. But Paul makes a dis- 
tinction even among the righteous in the resurrection. 
Verses 41, 42. 

7. Universalism says : " The phrase fi kingdom of God ' 
we have already frequently explained in these pages. It 
signifies the moral reign of Jesus upon earth." — Guide, 
p. 182. But Paul uses the expression to designate the 
future state. Ver. 50. This must be admitted unless the 
resurrection named and its predicates take place in this 
world ; a position which would at once destroy all the 
capital Universalists wish to make out of the chapter. 

8. Paul teaches that the sting of death is sin. Uni- 
versalism teaches that sin is no more its sting than holi- 
ness, as we have seen. 

9. Universalists scout the idea that our actions here 
affect our future condition. Mr. Whittemore thinks it 
" is alike reasonable with saying that a man who sows a 
field of grain in Massachusetts shall reap the harvest 
from it in the State of Ohio."— Trumpet, No. 635. But 
Paul, as we have seen, exhorts his brethren to labor in 
reference to the future world. 

In at least these nine particulars are Universalist 
teachings at war with the evangelical teachings of Paul 
in this chapter. It is but just to state here that a class 



See. 90.] UXIVERSALTSM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



249 



now in the order ignore Mr. Whitteniore's doctrine, and 
admit that while wickedness here cannot shut a man out 
of heaven, it may cause him to enter the future in a 
dwarfish condition, not for the punishment of his sins 
here, but as a result. (Sec. CXL.) And here we add, 
that with the same liberty Universalists take with cer- 
tain phrases and texts an ingenious man could, with 
some good degree of plausibility, deprive this whole chap- 
ter of its future-state reference. (Sec. CXXII.) As Mr. 
Whittem6re has furnished us a rule, (Sec. CXIV,) let us 
now apply it to this chapter. Is it said that all men 
shall be holy and happy in eternity ? Is it once said 
that all men shall enjoy endless bliss beyond the grave f 
As this is not said, we conclude nothing like it is meant 
in this chapter. Observe, we do not adopt this rule, but 
only apply it to show how the demand for a particular 
phraseology, that Mr. Whittemore makes, will destroy 
his own proof-texts. 

XC. u But they which shall be accounted worthy to 
obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, 
neither marry nor are given in marriage ; neither can 
they die any more : for they are equal unto the angels ; 
and are the children of God, being the children of the 
resurrection." Luke xx, 35, 36 ; Matt, xxii, 30 ; Mark 
xii, 25. 

The assumption is, that all men by the resurrection 
are to, be made equal unto the angels, and are to die no 
more. But the reader will see at a glance that what is 
here asserted by the Saviour is not spoken of all men, 
but of a particular class, " they which shall be accounted 
xoorthy" This passage and Matt, xxii, 23 ; Mark xii, 
25, are parallel texts. They occur in our Lord's conver- 
sation with the Sadducees. The rule laid down for the 
interpretation of parallels is this : " Where parallel pas- 
sages present themselves, the clearer and more copious 



250 



UNIVERSALIS^! NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



place must be selected to illustrate one that is more 
briefly and obscurely expressed." — Home. 

All who acknowledge the divine authority of the 
Scriptures will see that this rule is a just one, as the 
Holy Ghost would express nothing unimportant or un- 
true. The text in Luke is the more full and copious, 
and among other things not found in Matthew and Mark 
is this : " But they which shall be accounted worthy to 
obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead.'' 
This part of the text stands directly in the way of these 
expounders, so they must get rid of it by hook or by 
crook. To do this the rule named is trampled under 
foot, as all will see, by the following comment upon these 
texts from the " Guide to Universalism," p. 155 : 

"John makes no record of our Lord's conversation 
with the Sadducees on this subject at all. Xow what 
shall we do? We find that two of three Evangelists 
who report this discourse make no mention of the quali- 
fications found in Luke. But what then ? Are we, there- 
fore, to say that what Luke reported is not true ? No, 
certainly not. "What we are after is the weight of evi- 
dence as to the importance of that qualification. And 
that weight is as two to one against the importance of 
the words in question. We say against the importance^ 
because had Matthew and Mark considered them im- 
portant, (as the objection we are noticing certainly is.) 
it is hardly rational to conclude they would have 
omitted them altogether. The most probable conclu- 
sion is, that, whatever we may understand by the words 
now, Luke did not intend by his report to give a sense 
to the conversation, which the other Evangelists did 
not receive or record. They ought to be understood as 
harmonizing." * 

Here you have it, reader, with all its beauties. Mr. W. 

* Mr. Thayer, in his ' ; Theology of Universalism." indulges in the 
same quibbling upon tins text, p. 220. 



SeC. 90.] UXIYERSALISM SOT OF THE BlBLE. 251 



would not say that what Luke says is not true. 
Xo, that would be showing the cloven foot of Infidelity 
too plainly. But he makes a dust about the importance 
of the qualification, if possible, to destroy the force of 
the Saviour's words. But there they stand faithfully 
recorded, and with mighty weight, too, against the 
Universalist perversion of this passage. Mr. W. knows 
this, hence his labor to render them unimportant. To 
labor to make them unimportant, is virtually to labor 
to fix upon the Saviour the character of a trifler. To 
say that all men shall be accounted worthy^ is to make the 
Saviour utter nonsense. Why is the qualifying phrase 
thrown in if there is no distinction in the future world ? 

It will not be admitted that the Saviour taught by 
implication in this passage that a part of mankind 
would never be raised from the dead, as that would be 
fatal to Universalism ; for, according to that theory, if 
they are not raised, then are they annihilated; and if 
annihilated, then are they not saved. 

With this text before us, one of three things must be 
admitted : either Christ used words without meaning, 
or he taught that some would never rise from the dead, 
or else he had respect to some particular condition or 
resurrection in the future world. To adopt the first of 
these is impious, and to adopt the second is fatal to Uni- 
versalism. The third is equally fatal to this dogma, 
but contains the truth, for every candid mind must see 
that the Saviour, in his reply to the Sadducees, referred 
to the preparation necessary in order to enter that bliss- 
ful spirit-world where the souls of the righteous go 
after death, and to the resurrection of the just, or the 
righteous dead — the same resurrection to which Paul 
aspired, (Phil, iii, 11,) who was willing to sacrifice 
every thing the world called good and great, "if," says 
he, " I might by any means attain to the resurrection 
of the dead." (See Sec. CY.) 



252 



UxiVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



Now Paul was under no fearful apprehension that all 
would not be raised, for he has declared his belief in the 
resurrection of all men, (Acts xxiv, 15 ;) but he knew 
there was danger of his failing of the resurrection of the 
just, and it w T as this he labored to secure. Again, 
there is a portion of the passage in Luke which Uni- 
versaiists often press into their service. It is this : 
" Neither can they die anymore," " Are the children of 
God, being the children of the resurrection." Neither 
Matthew nor Mark record these sayings ; therefore, ac- 
cording to Mr. Whittemore's logic, they can be of but 
little importance ; yet this same man, and others of like 
faith, find it very convenient to pervert them, and make 
them very important in teaching their errors ! Take 
the following oft-perverted, yet much-relied-upon, text 
by Universalists to prove their doctrine : " And I, if I 
be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto 
me." John xii, 32. This is recorded only by John. 
Matthew, Mark, and Luke have said nothing about it. 
Is it therefore of but little importance? All will see 
the wickedness of adopting such a method with the 
Scriptures, and how large a portion of the Gospels must 
wilt away into little importance under such an interpre- 
tation. (Sec. XLII.) 

The Saviour is not speaking to the Sadducees upon 
the subject of happiness after death, but upon the sub- 
ject of marriage. The objection in their minds is not 
a supposed difficulty as to moral character in the resur- 
rection, but as to conjugal relations. He tells them 
that they err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power 
of God ; for in the resurrection they neither marry nor 
are given in marriage, but concerning marriage, are as 
the angels in heaven. This is true of all in the future 
state, whether good or bad ; but the Saviour, as before 
stated, is speaking only of the good or worthy. But do 
men merit the bliss of heaven? The word worthy, as 



Sec. 90.] TJotveesalism istot of the Bible. 



253 



liere used, is not to be understood in the sense of merit, 
but of suitableness, the same sense it bears in Rev. iii, 
4 : " They shall walk with me in white, for they are 
worthy ; " that is, they are suitable or qualified. From 
the context we learn that the audience of the Saviour 
was a mixed multitude of disciples, Pharisees, and Sad- 
ducees. None of them were Universalists. The Sad- 
ducees denied a future existence, and the Pharisees be- 
lieved in a resurrection and endless punishment. The 
Saviour not only meets the objection of the Sadducees 
concerning the resurrection, but he also exposes their 
error respecting the immortality of the soul by proving 
that doctrine true from the Pentateuch, the five books 
of Moses, which they professed to receive. In doing 
this, Universalists will have it that he preached their 
doctrine most clearly to his hearers. If he did he was 
understood by them, for it would be a severe reflection 
upon the Great Teacher to say that he failed to make 
himself understood. But is there any evidence that 
they so understood him ? Observe : Universalists have 
told us that the great cause of our Saviour's ill treat- 
ment by the Pharisees was his Universalism. Well, 
now, here are his shrewd opposers, the Pharisees, be- 
lievers in endless punishment, who are present for the 
express purpose that "they might take hold of his 
words." Verse 20. Do they raise any objections to 
his words on this occasion ? None at all ; but express 
their unqualified approbation thus : " Master, thou hast 
well said." Verse 39. Would these Partialists have 
spoken thus if he had taught them Universalism in this 
connection? Never. Christ exercised his whole min- 
istry among believers in endless punishment, but he 
never came in collision with them on this point, or re- 
buked the doctrine in a single instance. (Sec. CXXXI.) 
flow unlike the course pursued by Universalist minis- 
tars in our time. What would be thought of a minister 



25i 



UNIVERSALIS^! XOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



of that order who should remain silent upon the doctrine 
of endless punishment, and should use such a qualifying 
expression as "they which shall be accounted worthy 
to obtain," when speaking of the future state? With 
these facts before us, all must see that using this pas- 
sage to prove the salvation of all men is a most palpa- 
ble perversion. (See Sec. CXXII.) 

XCI. " And fear not them which kill the body, but 
are not able to kill the soul ; but rather fear him which 
is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matt, x, 
28 ; Luke xii, 4, 5. 

We have in the " Guide," p. 92, on this declaration 
of the Saviour, a specimen of the treatment those texts 
receive which are directly opposed to Universalism. 
Says the author, " This passage is, confessedly, difficult 
of construction." Very difficult for Universalism, we 
admit. He then favors us with quibbles, questions, 
negatives, and Greek criticisms. He tells us again and 
again what it does not mean, but leaves us staring about 
to learn what it does mean. He informs us that " vari- 
ous explanations of this passage have been given by 
Universaiists," and refers us to a string of authors, whose 
productions probably not one in a hundred of his 
readers will ever see. Failing to find in the " Guide " 
how the author would construe the text, we betake our- 
selves to files of the " Trumpet," and are more success- 
ful. We find it as follows: "Fear less them, which can 
torture you, but have not the power lawfully to take life, 
than that power which is able to destroy you utterly in 
Gehenna," Mi. W. then adds : "Jesus did not tell his 
apostles to fear that God would destroy them utterly 
in Gehenna. On the contrary, in the same connection, 
he exhorts them to have confidence in God, and to have 
no fear that he would forsake them. They might 
reasonably be afraid of men who had power, according 



SeC. 91.] U>'IVERSALISM KOT OF THE BlBLE. 255 



to the laws, to destroy them in Gehenna, the place of 
legal punishment near Jerusalem ; but they were ex- 
pressly told not to be afraid of God, in whose sight 
they were precious. At the time Jesus uttered these 
words the Jews were in subjection to the Romans, and 
had not the power them selves lawfully to take life. The 
power of burning in Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnom, 
had passed out of the hands of the Jews ; hence Jesus 
directed them to fear that power less which could only 
torture them, without destroying life, than the power 
which could destroy both body and life in Gehenna, or the 
valley of Hinnom." — Trumpet, Xo. 678. Here Mr. W. 
denies that the fear of God is enjoined, but says that 
the expression "fear him " refers to the Roman power. 
Mr. Balfour expresses himself as follows : " Who, then, is 
referred to by the word him whom the disciples were 
commanded to fear ? God, we think, is the being ; and is 
designated by what he is able to do, in the next words." 
— Inq., p. 142. So Mr. W. and Mr. B. are at variance. 
Who shall decide? Again, says Mr. B., "If it is said 
the civil magistrate is the one referred to, I then ask, 
Can he kill soul and life,' which others could not do? 
Could he c destroy both soul and body ? 5 If so, then 
God himself could do no more than this. But, unless it 
can be shown that destroying both soul and body in 
Gehenna was a punishment inflicted by the civil magis- 
trate in our Lord's day, it is not at all probable that our 
Lord referred to him." — lno>, p. 141. Correct, Mr. Bal- 
four. It is a mere assumption, destitute of any founda- 
tion in history, either sacred or profane, that the valley 
of Hinnom was a place for inflicting punishments, 
either by Jews or Romans, in our Saviour's time. 

A writer in the ''Trumpet" paraphrases the text on 
Mr. W.'s principle thus : " And fear not them (that is, 
the Jews) which can only torture the body, but are not 
able to take the life ; but rather fear him (that is, the 



256 



TLSTYEKSALISAI NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



Roman power) which is able to torture your body, and 
destroy your life in hell ( Gehenna.)" — Trumpet, No. 948. 
The doctrine inculcated by Mr. Wkittemore is this : 
Fear not God, neither fear the Jews, but greatly fear the 
Roman power ! But to destroy the force of John v, 28, 
29, against their doctrine, TJniversalists are under the 
necessity of representing the Jews as those to be 
feared ; and when their power should be broken, great 
favors might be expected of the Roman power ! (Sec. 
LXXX.) Again, did our Lord adopt this blind method 
to inculcate the duty of fearing men upon his disciples? 
Injustice, however, to Mr. Whittemore, we state that he 
seems to have abandoned his explanation in the " Trum- 
pet ; " for in his "Guide" he asks, " Does it say that 
God will destroy both soul and body in hell ? Xo ; it 
says he is able to do so." So now God, and not the Ro- 
mans, is the one referred to. This discrepancy between 
Mr. W. in the "Trumpet," and Mr.W. in the "Guide," 
grows out of the fact, doubtless, that the text is so "diffi- 
cult of construction " But does not God's ability, here 
admitted, teach most conclusively that there is a hell? 
Has an officer ability to put a man into prison while 
there is no prison in existence ? Certainly not. Mr. W., 
in the " Guide," regards the Saviour as merely asserting 
the power of God, and not his determination to punish 
after the death of the body. The sentiment of the pas- 
sage, then, is this : Be not afraid of them that kill the 
body, but after that have no more that they can do ; but 
I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear : fear him which, 
after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell ; yea, 
I say unto you fear him, for he will never do it. That 
is, fear him of whom ye have nothing to fear ! ! There 
is nothing to fear ; God only has the power, but he will 
never use it. Did the Saviour utter such solemn nonsense 
as this ? Yet to this is Mr. W. driven in his war with 
God's truth. 



Sec. 91.] TTxi VERBALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 257 



But it is said by some that soul in the text means 
animal life. ]STow all know that animal life dies with 
the body, which reduces the passage to this absurdity : 
" Fear not those who kill the life, but cannot kill the 
life ! " Did the Great Teacher mean this ? Never. 
Mr. Page, in his commentary, furnishes no less than five 
different explanations of this text, some of them as di- 
verse from each other as light is from darkness, given 
by W. E. Manly, J. B. Dods, H. Ballou, S. Cobb, and 
H. Ballou, 2d. This class of writers seems to be w r ell 
agreed upon one point, namely, that the text must be 
murdered; but they are far from being satisfied with 
each other's manner of doing it. Their expositions look 
so absurd to themselves that they are constantly endeav- 
oring to mend eacli other's work, and if possible rendei 
them more plausible. But what is all this work but an 
evidence of their warfare with the plain and evident 
teachings of the word of God, to get rid of the doctrine 
of a future hell ? The passage is a very plain one, and 
teaches — 

1. That the soul is immaterial — that the body may be 
killed while the soul shall survive uninjured. 

2. That there is such a place as hell, into which soul 
and body may be cast and destroyed. 

3. That in the discharge of their duty the disciples 
were not to fear men, who could only kill the body ; but 
they were to fear God, who is able to cast both soul and 
body into hell. 

The word Gehenna, which in this text is translated hell, 
lias been a subject of no small amount of labored criticism. 
Mr. Balfour has occupied no less than two hundred and 
forty pages of his u Inquiry," in his peculiar way, to show 
that the w T ord in our Lord's time was not used to signify 
a place of future punishment. The Rev. Andrew Royce, 
in a valuable little work entitled " Universalism a 
Modem Invention," has taken hold of the subject with 

17 



258 



Universaxism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



the hand of a master, His manly and conclusive reason- 
ings contrast very strikingly when compared with the 
low criticisms, sophistries, perversions, and appeals to 
the prejudices of the irreligious with which Mr. Bal- 
four's book abounds. Mr. Royce lays down the follow- 
ing just rule of interpretation : 

ct Words and phrases are to be understood in their usual 
and known signification, of the age and country in 
which they were spoken or written, unless the writer or 
speaker expressly attaches some other meaning to them? 
P. 15. 

The propriety of this rule is shown, and some of the 
passages out of the twelve in which the word Gehenna 
occurs in the N"ew Testament are given, and then the 
history of the word is presented as follows : 

" isTow what was the known and usual signification 
of Gehenna among the Jews in the days of Christ ? 

" Universalists have told us that Gehenna was, in the 
days of our Saviour, the name of a valley near Jeru- 
salem, where the filth of the city was deposited, where 
perpetual fires were kept burning, and where malefactors 
were executed ; and that when Christ used the word 
Gehenna he had reference to punishment inflicted in this 
valley, or to other temporal calamities symbolized by 
punishment in this valley. Almost the whole of this 
statement is false. But the truth is this : The eastern 
section of the pleasant valley which bounds Jerusalem 
on the south was anciently called the vcdley of Hinnom, 
in the Hebrew tongue, Ge Hinnom, (Josh, xv, 8.) In 
this valley, more than seven hundred years before 
Christ, the idolatrous Jews set up the image of the god 
Moloch, a horrid idol-god of the Ammonites, and to it 
they sacrificed their children by fire (2 Chron. xxviii, 3) 
contrary to the express command of God, (Lev. xviii, 21.) 
About six hundred and eighty years before Christ the 
good king Josiah abolished this horrid practice, and de- 



Sec. 91.] Uniyeksalism not of the Bible. 



259 



filed the valley of Hmnom. 2 Kings xxiii, 10. Hence- 
forward the filth of the city was deposited there, and 
fires were kept burning to consume it. This valley now 
become a loathsome place, with its dead carcases per- 
petually breeding worms; and its fires continually burn, 
ing, became, in the mind of the Jew, a fit emblem of that 
place of future woe into which the wicked are cast after 
death. After this valley began to be considered an image 
of the regions of woe in another world, in process of 
time, by an easy transition very common in language, 
the Jews began to call those regions themselves Gehenna 
— a name derived from Ge Hinnom, the ancient He- 
brew name of the valley. Probably for centuries before 
Christ came the Jews had been using Gehenna as the 
name of the place of future punishment. 

" We assert, then, that Gehenna was familiarly used 
by the Jews in the days of our Saviour as the name of 
the place of future punishment — that this was its cus- 
tomary and known signification at that time." Pp. 18-20. 
In proof of this position extracts are furnished from the 
Talmuds and Targurns, the works of Jews who lived 
near the time of Christ. Mr. Royce says, " Indeed, I 
find no evidence that Gehenna was used in any other 
sense in the days of our Saviour. I find no evidence 
that there was any place on earth called Gehenna in 
the days of Christ. That six or seven hundred years 
before Christ there was a place near Jerusalem, called 
in the Hebrew of that age Ge Hinnom, is evident 
enough ; that the word Gehenna was derived from the 
words Ge Hinnom is also very clear. It is quite certain 
that the word Gehenna was used in the days of Christ 
as the name of the world of woe. But I find no evi- 
dence that there was ever any place on earth called Ge- 
henna." " But we have other reasons for believing that 
Christ employed Gehenna to designate the place of 
future woe. It evidently, in all the instances in which 



260 Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 

lie uses it, denotes some hind of punishment. But where 
is the evidence that men were punished in the valley of 
Hi n no in in the time of Christ or afterward ? Men 
were in no danger of punishment in any Gehenna on 
earthy yet our Saviour threatened wicked men with the 
condemnation of Gehenna. Further: the Gehenna of 
which Christ spake was where the ' fire is not quenched.' 
But were there perpetual tires in the valley of Hinnom 
in the days of Christ ? There is certainly no evidence 
of it. That fires were frequently kindled in this valley, 
to devour the filth deposited there after it was defiled 
by the order of King Josiab, several hundred years be- 
fore Christ, is probable enough ; but there is no evi- 
dence that fires were unceasingly burning in the valley of 
Hinnom in the days of Christ." Pp. 23, 25. Mr. Royce 
is doubtless correct ; for Universalists have never been 
able to produce evidence that there was such a place of 
punishment known by such a name in the days of Christ 
near Jerusalem. All they have ever produced is the 
unsupported opinions of some modern commentators. 
The reviewers of Mr. R., it seems, admit that the Tar- 
gums and Talmuds are good evidence as to the meaning 
of Gehenna at the time in which they were written, but 
assert that most of the eminent critics now agree that 
the Tar gum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, from which most 
of the extracts furnished by Mr. R. were made, could 
not have been completed till some time between two 
and four hundred years after Christ. To this Mr. R. 
replies, " This is not true. c Most of the eminent critics' 
do not agree in any such thing. Only three or four are 
named, and three or four are not most* of the eminent 
critics on this subject, as we proceed to show. 

" 1. Prideaux says that it is the general opinion, both 
among Jews and Christians, that this Tar glim 6 is as an- 
cient as our Saviour's time, if not more ancient. 5 2. The 
Jewish historians positively assert it. Prideaux men- 



Sec. 91.] Univehsalism not of the Bible. 



261 



tions particularly Zacutas, Gedalias, David Ganz, Abra- 
ham Levita, and others. 3. Prideaux, with the older 
critics generally, place it near our Saviour's time. 
4. Calmet, author of an £ Historical and Critical Diction- 
ary of the Bible,' places it at the same time. 5. The cel- 
ebrated Orientalist and Biblical critic, Gesenius, than 
whom none can be a better judge, considers this Targum 
as ancient as the time of Christ. 6. Home, in his ' In- 
troduction to the Critical Study of the Scriptures,' says 
that this Targum was written about fifty years before 
Christ. Wolfiis, in his 1 Bibiiotheca Hebraica,' as quoted 
by Horne, says that Jonathan flourished a short time 
before Christ. 8. Parkhurst, the author of a Hebrew and 
Greek Lexicon, quotes this Targum as evidence of the 
meaning of Gehenna, which I presume he would not 
have done had he not supposed it nearly as ancient as 
our Saviours time. 9. The editor of the £ Encyclopedia 
of Religious Knowledge,' after consulting, it should 
seem, the various authorities, places it about thirty years 
before Christ. 10. Professor Stuart says, ' The later 
Hebrew, the Talmudic and the Pwabbinic, was not so 
late but that it preceded the time when the ISTew Testa- 
ment was written.' It is true that doubts have been 
expressed by some in relation to the antiquity of this Tar- 
gum. Horne says, 'From the silence of Origen and 
Jerome concerning this Targum, both Bauer and 
Jahn date it much later than is generally admitted.' " 
— Pp. 124, 126. In reply to this our author intro- 
duces an argument from Prideaux, showing most 
conclusively that the reasons for such doubts were 
without weight ; and then exposes a falsehood put 
forth by the editor of the " Trumpet," namely, that 
" e According to the testimony of the most learned 
men, the earliest of the Targum s brought forward was 
not written till very many years after the death of 
Christ. In regard to the most important of all — the 



262 Uniyeesalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 

Targum of Jonathan — the most learned of the German 
critics agree that it was not written till three or four 
hundred years after the death of Christ.' Now this 
statement contains more than one falsehood. 1. 6 The 
most learned men ' do not testify that this Targum was 
not written till very many years after the death of 
Christ, as we have just seen. 2. The most learned of 
the German critics do not 6 agree ' that it was not writ- 
ten till three or four hundred years after the death of 
Christ. Gesenius is as learned as any of them, and he 
places it before Christ 3. None of the German critics 
6 agree ' that it was not written until three or four hun- 
dred years after the death of Christ. Some of them, it 
is true, suppose it mainly a compilation of earlier Tar- 
gums, and not completed till between one and three 
hundred years after the death of Christ." — Pp. 130, 131. 

Concerning the use of the word Gehenna, Justin 
Martyr, who wrote about fifty years after the death of 
John, says, " Gehenna is the place in which those are 
punished who lead unrighteous lives, and disbelieve 
what God has declared by Christ." Justin had the ad- 
vantage of instruction from those who had conversed 
with the apostles, and doubtless learned the sense of 
Gehenna from that source. " It may be remarked fur- 
ther that it is obvious that Gehenna, in the language 
of the Jews of our Saviour's time, was the name of 
the place of future punishment, from the fact that 
there is not the least evidence that they had any other 
name for this place. The reader should be careful not 
to confound Gehenna with Hades. Hades was under- 
stood to be the world of spirits generally, in which were 
both the righteous and the wicked; but Gehenna was 
the place of future punishment, as Paradise was the 
place of future bliss. That the Jews believed in a place 
of future punishment none deny. By what name, then, 
did they call it ? Wherever the word is found in ancient 



Sec. 91.] Universalis^ not of the Bible. 



263 



writings, unless we except the Xew Testament, it uni- 
formly stands for the place of future woe. The presump- 
tion, therefore, is certainly very strong that this was its 
exclusive meaning. If Universalists deny that this word 
signified the place of future punishment among the Jews 
of our Saviour's day, it rightfully devolves upon them to 
show by what name they did call this place ; or, if they 
had no name, by what circumlocution they expressed it. 
It is incredible if the Jews of Juclea had another name 
for the world of woe, that it should not have appeared 
in the Xew Testament. If our Saviour had believed in 
such a place he would of course have spoken of it under 
the name which it bore with his countrymen. If he did 
not believe in such a place, he would have used the name 
to refute the doctrine/'— Pp. 130, 133. 

The word Gehenna does not occur in Josephus, Philo, 
or the Apocrypha. To this Mr. R. replies, "The reason 
why this word does not occur in Josephus shall be given 
in the words of Hosea Ballou, 2d : 6 He sought to avoid 
the Hebraisms and peculiar phrases of the Jews, and to 
attain the classic purity of the Greek and Roman style. 5 
Gehenna was a word originating and used only in the 
language of our Saviour's time, which is the reason why 
it does not occur in Philo or the Apocrypha, all of which 
were written in Alexandria, and in the Greek. Mr. 
Whittemore, with his characteristic candor, says, ' If 
this word signifies the place of endless misery, how does 
it happen that ail the apostles preserved so entire a 
silence in regard to it? Let Mr. Royce answer this if 
he thinks it safe to atempt it ! ' I think it entirely 
1 safe ' to say that if Gehenna is mentioned ten or twelve 
times in the Xew Testament in the sense of future pun- 
ishment, the doctrine is established, and not the less es- 
tablished because it is not mentioned one hundred times 
more. I think it ' safe ' also to say that, since Gehenna 
is a word of the dialect of Judea of our Saviour's time. 



264 



UNIVERSALIS^! NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part T, 



in writing to people out of Judea, whether Jews or Gen- 
tiles, the apostles would not have been likely to have 
often used the word Gehenna, for to such a people it 
would have conveyed no definite idea. They could, as 
they had already done, teach the doctrine of future pun- 
ishment without naming the place of such punishment." 
— Pp. 138, 139. Following up his opponents, Mr.R. says, 
" Our Vermont reviewer, following Mr. Balfour, con- 
tends that the jDassages in the New Testament in which 
Gehenna is found have exclusive reference to temporal 
calamities. This he infers from several propositions 
which he assumes to be true. These will be first ex- 
amined. 1. He says, c This (Gehenna) is a Hebrew or 
Old Testament word.' This is not true. This word 
does not occur in the Hebrew Old Testament, or in any 
translation of it. The words of which it is compounded 
are there, but Gehenna is not there. 2. 'Its meaning in 
the New Testament must be learned from the Old.' 
This is not true. If this word were found in the Old 
Testament, it does not certainly follow that it has the 
same meaning in the New. Paradise is found in the 
Hebrew text of the Old Testament, (Neh. ii, 8 ; Cant, 
iv, 13 ; Eccles. ii, 5,) and always as the name of a place 
in another world. As many, and just about the same, 
arguments may be adduced to prove that Paradise does 
not mean a place of bliss, as that Gehenna does not 
mean hell. 3. He adds : 6 The writers of the Old Testa- 
ment use this term to signify, 1st, a valley near Jerusa- 
lem ; and, 2d, in a figurative or emblematic sense, to 
describe the temporal miseries which God was to bring 
on the Jews for their sins.' Neither of these assertions 
is true. The writers of the Old Testament, as we have 
seen, do not use the word at all ; and they never used 
valley of Hinnom, from which this word is derived, in 
a 'figurative or emblematic sense.' I know that Mr. 
Balfour asserts this, but it is only his assertion, as y?Q 



Sec. 91.] Universalis:*! not of the Bible. 



265 



shall see. The passages referred to as instances of the 
use of the term valley of Hiimom in this figurative 
sense are in the 7th and 19th chapters of Jeremiah. 
They are as follows: 'And they have built the high 
places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of 
Hinnom, to burn their sons and daughters in the fire ; 
which 1 commanded them not, neither came it into my 
heart. Therefore, behold the days come, saith the Lord, 
that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of 
the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter ; for they 
shall bury in Tophet till there be no place.' Jer. vii, 
31, 32. 'They have built also the high places of Baal, 
to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto 
Baal, which I commanded them not. Therefore, behold 
the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no 
more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hin- 
nom, but The valley of slaughter, and I will make void 
the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place ; and I 
will cause them to fall by the sword before their 
enemies.' Jer. xix, 5-7. Are the words valley of the 
son of Hinnom used figuratively here ? Are they in the 
least turned from their literal meaning ? Every intelli- 
gent child should know better. I should have been 
pleased if our reviewer had informed us precisely what 
figure is used here. It must be readily discerned by 
every reader of these passages that Tophet, or valley 
of Hinnom, is mentioned by the prophet simply as the 
place in which the Jews had been guilty of idolatry, and 
in which their dead bodies should be buried in multi- 
tudes, when God, for their iniquities, should send upon 
them their enemies; and that, on account of this, it was 
to be called the valley of slaughter. It was a literal 
prediction, and was exactly and literally accomplished 
in the days of Jeremiah. In proof, read Lamentations. 

"Thus we perceive that every one of this reviewer's 
three or four propositions are really untrue. They are 



266 



UXIVEESALTSM XOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



mere naked assertions. He does not attempt to prove 
one of them true. And yet precisely such, and no 
better, is the foundation of all the various interpretations 
which the Universalists have given of those passages in 
which Gehenna is found. 

" The absurdity of his argument will be fully seen by 
laying it out in full view. ^HenceJ he says, (that is, 
from the preceding falsehoods,) ' hence, when Christ 
used Gehenna, speaking in the idiom of the Jewish 
prophets of the Old Testament, he signified by it, first, 
punishments in the literal valley of Hinnom ; or second, 
temporal judgments coming on the Jews, symbolized by 
the valley and every thing connected with it.' Accord- 
ingly, the passage which reads thus: 'And if thy hand 
offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into 
life maimed, than having two hands to go into Gehenna, 
into the fire that never shall be quenched,' (Mark ix, 43,) 
is interpreted to mean thus : ' It is better for thee to 
enter into the life or enjoyment of the Gospel, or Christ's 
spiritual kingdom in this world, feeling as if thou hadst 
made a sacrifice of interests as dear as a hand, an eye, or 
a foot, than remain out of the Gospel kingdom in pos- 
session of these interests, and fall under the dreadful 
judgments coming on the Jews who reject Christ, which 
are symbolized by Gehenna ; for the fire of those divine 
judgments shall not be quenched or stayed in its prog- 
ress, but shall effectually destroy the Jewish people.' 
Now strip this argument of all its sophistry > and it stands 
thus : Christ's words, which plainly say one thing, must 
be interpreted to mean another and a totally different 
thing ; because more than five hundred years before 
Christ dreadful calamities were visited upon the Jews 
for their idolatry, in exact fulfillment of the predictions 
of Jeremiah. What can be more absurd than this ? 
For, as we have seen, the calamities in which the Jews 
were involved when their country was depopulated, and 



Sec. 91.] Universalis^ xot of the Bible. 



267 



themselves dragged into captivity, five hundred years 
before Christ, or the language of Jeremiah by which 
these events were foretold, have no more connection with 
the language of Christ in which Gehenna is found, than 
has the calamity of Noah's flood. Nor does it appear 
from the subject or connection, that he had any more 
reference to the destruction of Jerusalem than to the 
destruction of Lisbon. 

"If the valley of Hinnom, mentioned by Jeremiah, 
had been in his day a place in which dreadful punishments 
were inflicted ; if he had actually used it figuratively, to 
signify temporal miseries coming on the Jews as a 
people ; if Christ had used the same words in a similar 
connection, and in reference to a similar subject, there 
might have been some foundation for the above argu- 
ment. But such are not the facts. Jeremiah spoke of 
Ge Ben Hinnom^ our Saviour of Gehenna. Jeremiah 
spoke of national sins, and explicitly and literally pre- 
dicts national punishments. Jesus Christ spoke of 
individual sins, and makes no allusion to the time, place, 
or circumstances of temporal punishment. In short, 
there is no more connection between the events indicated 
in these respective passages than between any two 
events whatever." Pp. 139-144. 

By these extracts from Mr. Royce, the reader will see 
the sophistry and perversion of Universalists upon the 
word Gehenna. If any thing more were necessary to 
show the absurdity of the figurative interpretations of 
those passages where the word occurs which Universalists 
contend for, it is found in the fact that they are not at 
all agreed among themselves with regard to their mean- 
ing, as we have before stated in this section. 

The places where the word occurs in the Bible are as 
follows: Matt, v, 22, 29, 30; x, 28; xviii, 9; xxiii, 15, 
33 ; Mark ix, 43, 45, 47 ; Luke xii, 5 ; James iii, 6. 
Mr. Witherell, who it seems stands high in the order 



263 



Universalism xot.of the Bible. [Parti, 



as an expositor of ITniversalist doctrines, speaking of 
Gehenna, says : * c I am aware that it is contended that 
this word came by degrees to be used to signify a place 
of punishment. Well, because a majority of professing 
Christians have come, by degrees, to believe that the 
word Gehenna signifies a place of endless punishment, 
is that any proof that the sacred writers used it to ex- 
press such an idea ? Xo. We are not to judge of the 
meaning of words by what they have come by degrees 
to signify, but we should endeavor to ascertain what 
idea the writer meant to convey by them." Pp. 20, 21. 

Here we have a sample of the false issues so common 
with this class of writers, and in this case it discovers 
either an uninformed head or a bad heart, either of 
which is not very creditable to those editors and minis 
ters who have so "cordially approbated" his work. 
(Sec. IV.) We fearlessly assert that no author who is 
a believer in future punishment ever put forth the senti- 
ment that "Christians have come, by degrees, to believe 
that Gehenna signifies a place of endless punishment." 
This is a " false fact," created to serve the cause of error. 
The truth is this, as has been shown: Gehenna was in 
use among the Jews of our Saviour's time to designate 
the place of future punishment, and the Saviour used it 
in the same sense. This is what Mr. Royee and others 
have asserted and proved, and not that "Christians 
have come, by degrees," etc. 

XCBL " Xot of works, lest any man should boast," 
etc. Eph. ii, 9, 10. 

When Christian ministers have urged the importance 
of repentance, faith, and holiness here, in order to heaven 
hereafter, Universalists have denied that these are at all 
necessary in order to secure future bliss, and a crafty use 
is sometimes made of this text to serve their purpose. 
The following is an illustration : Ci Immortal happiness 



Sec. 93.] TJhxvebsajjsm not of the Bible. 



2(59 



is the free, unpurchased gift of God, and every person 
must receive it as such ; tor it is 4 not of works, lest any 
man should boast.'" — Witherell, p. 28. According to 
this writer, the apostle is speaking of salvation in the 
immortal state. . Will he abide his own construction ? 
Then is the immortal salvation conditioned upon faith, 
as may be seen by the context, which reads thus : " For 
by grace are ye saved through faith ; and that not of 
yourselves, it is the gift of God. Xot of works, lest any 
man should boast." Ver. 9. 10. If the salvation of the 
text is in the immortal state, then is future salvation 
secured " through faith" which contradicts modern 
Universalism. But if only present salvation is intended, 
then we have but another instance of gross perversion ; 
for the apostle is made to say, by this writer, that im- 
mortal happiness is not of works, lest any man should 
boast, when the passage asserts no such thing. Chris- 
tians never assume that either present or future salvation 
is merited by their works. They are often grossly mis- 
represented by Universalists upon this point. There is 
a vast difference between meriting salvation by works, and 
using the means which God has ordained to secure the 
salvation which he freely gives. The latter, true Chris- 
tians do while they acknowledge that it is all of grace. 

XCIII. "There was a certain rich man, which was 
clothed in purple and fine linen," etc. Luke xvi, 19-31. 

This portion of Holy Writ has proved a great source 
of trouble to modern Universalists, and volumes have 
been written by them to put out the light here shed 
upon the future destiny of man. With them, this is a 
parable. To prove this, and that the cutting off the 
Jews from the Gospel privileges, and the exaltation of 
ilie Gentiles to these privileges, is intended, Mr. Rayner 
has put forth a book of nine lectures! It is not the 



270 TJnivessalism not of the Btble. [Part I, 



design to enter into a lengthy refutation of this view, 
but only to give the reader a clue to a perversion of this 
Scripture in their hands. 

Says Mr. Whitternore, " By the death of the two in- 
dividuals is intended the change which was then about 
to take place in the circumstances of the Jews and 
Gentiles. The Jews were soon to be deprived of their 
national privileges, because they had not made a good 
use of them, and were to be cast into outer darkness, and 
suffer the most tremendous evils that had ever befallen 
any nation. On the other hand, the Gentiles were to 
experience a change equally great. They were to be 
brought to a knowledge of God, and that Gospel which was 
preached, originally, to Abraham." — Notes on P., p. 235. 

"In the history, as recorded by the inspiration of 
God, both the rich man and Lazarus died. But, if the 
interpretation of Universalists be true, only one died — ■ 
the beggar was already dead. And when the rich man 
died, by losing his spiritual advantages, the beggar, by 
obtaining them, of course came to life. In the room of 
placing the rich man in hell, and sending Lazarus into 
Abraham's bosom, the Saviour, on the ground of Uni- 
versalism, would have placed the beggar in the rich 
man's house, adding to his splendor and his sumptuous 
fare, and then placed the rich man at the gate to beg 
a few crumbs from Lazarus' table. Such was actually 
the change which took place, if the death of the rich 
man was the loss of his spiritual privileges, and the 
death of the beggar was the conversion of the Gentiles 
to the faith of Abraham." — Smith, p. 103. There would 
be a shadow of plausibility in the Universalist interpre- 
tation if the rich man only was represented as dying. 
But how the exaltation of the Gentiles to Gospel privi- 
leges can be considered a death, requires a Universalist 
to understand; for, on their ground, the Gentiles died 
as well as the Jews. 



SeC. 93.] UNIVERSALIS^! NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



271 



Again : "There was a certain beggar named Lazarus, 
(Gentiles,) which was laid at his gate full of sores ; and 
he desired to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the 
rich man's (Jews) table." Yer. 20, 21. So the Gentiles 
were begging of the Jews. Xow when we consider the 
dependent relation the Jews held to the Romans, we cat 
scarcely conceive of any thing more absurd than the idea 
that the Saviour is representing the Gentiles as begging 
of the Jews, and desiring to be fed with crumbs which 
fell from their table. What favors have the Gentiles 
asked of the Jews, either political or religious? The 
rich man (Jews) says, "Father Abraham, have mercy 
on me, and send Lazarus, (Gentiles,) that he may dip 
the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue." 
" This, as Universalists teach, signifies the great desire 
on the part of the Jews to be blessed with the Gospel 
by means of the Gentiles. But in what age have they 
expressed such a desire ? They have never acknowl- 
edged, up to this hour, that the Gentiles have the faith 
of Abraham. They have never solicited instruction from 
them, nor desired the consolations which the Gentiles 
enjoy." — Smith, p. 103. 

" Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed ; so 
that they which would pass from hence to you cannot ; 
neither can they pass to us that would come from 
thence." Yer. 26. 

If the rich man in torments represents the Jews cast 
off from Gospel privileges, and if Lazarus in Abraham's 
bosom represents the Gentiles in possession of them, as 
Universalists assert, then it follows that if a Jew " would 
2?ass " over and become a Christian he cannot ; neither 
can a Christian embrace Judaism if he " would" But 
is there any such impassable gulf or decree that Jews 
cannot become Christians if they will, or Christians be- 
come Jews? This interpretation makes the Saviour 
mock the Jews in sending the Gospel to them ; and how 



272 



Uniyersalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



foolish was Paul, laboring and weeping over them to 
convert them to Christianity. This nonsensical and ab- 
surd explanation is contradicted by the fact that some 
have apostatized to Judaism from Christianity, and also 
by the fact that thousands of Jews have become 
Christians. 

The rich man (Jewish nation) had five brethren he 
was desirous should be warned, that they might shun 
the torment he was then enduring. Query. Were 
there five other Jewish nations in danger of being cast 
off from Gospel privileges ? Who were the " five breth- 
ren ? " Echo returns, Who ? 

In noticing these points, we are complained of by 
Universalists for making too much of circumstances 
connected with this account; for these, it is said, are 
not to be brought against the " main design." But Mr. 
Ballon, the father of modern Universalism, has noticed 
the circumstances very minutely, and has stated their 
meaning in his peculiar way, (" Notes," p. 252-256,) and 
Mr. Rayner and others have turned the circumstances 
against the sense given to the passage by evangelical 
Christians with all the art they are capable of. Some 
have gone so far as to deny its future reference, be- 
cause of the circumstance of the rich man and Laza- 
rus represented as having eyes, finger, and tongue, and 
thus placing themselves by the side of atheists, who re- 
ject the God of the Bible, who is pure spirit, because he 
is said to have eyes, ears, mouth, arm, etc. Such seem 
not to understand that things spiritual and eternal are 
represented to us in this world by visible and material 
objects. This faulting us for meddling with the circum- 
stances, arises from the fact that they are all against 
them. But the circumstances involve no more difficulty 
than their " main design." With them, the Saviour's 
main design was to illustrate the admission of the Gen- 
tiles to Gospel privileges, and the rejection of the Jews. 



SeC. 93.] UXIYERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 273 

But where do we learn this ? Has Heaven given them 
a special revelation upon this point ? Surely there is 
nothing in the passage, or its connection, that in the 
least indicates it. No common reader of the Bible 
would receive even a hint of it there. It is unnatural 
and false, manufactured to get rid of the solemn import 
of the passage. 

The main design of the Saviour appears to have been 
to present the difference in the future world between a 
wicked rich man and a righteous poor man. In proof 
we submit the following : 

In the context the Saviour was discoursing, not about 
giving the Gospel to the Gentiles, or rejecting the Jews, 
but on the subject of avarice. He told the Jews that 
they could not serve God and Mammon, rebuked 
them for their worldliness and self-righteousness; and 
" the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these 
things, and derided him." Ver. 14. He then introduced 
the subject of the rich man and Lazarus, instructing 
them that their state in Hades, if they were covetous 
and served Mammon rather than God, would be one of 
torment notwithstanding their wealth, while the right- 
eous poor would enjoy bliss. This is natural and easy, 
and applies with force to the subject. Another consid- 
eration which goes to give it a future-state reference, is 
the belief of those to whom it was addressed. Says Mr. 
Balfour upon this passage, "Our Lord was reasoning 
with the Pharisees, who believed the popular opinion 
that in Hades there was a place of torment." — lnq., 
p. 83. 

This being the fact, how, we ask, must they have un- 
derstood him ? This is a parable, say TTniversalists. 
Admitting this, what is gained to their cause? Just 
nothing; for parables are founded on facts and not on 
fiction. Examine every one of the Saviour's parables in 
the New Testament, and it will prove true in every in- 

18 



274 Universalis*! not of the Bible. [Part I, 



stance, unless this must be considered an exception. 
Take the following : 

"The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which 
a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till 
the whole was leavened." Matt, xiii, 33. Now this is 
founded not upon fiction, but fact. Women, leaven, 
meal, are all real things, and not fictitious. And then 
there was such a practice common as is here stated, 
namely, for women to put leaven into meal. If there 
were no women, no leaven, no meal, and if women never 
put leaven into meal, then this parable would be lame 
and forceless. If we should admit that Christ intended 
to illustrate the giving of the Gospel to the Gentiles, 
and the rejection of the Jews by this, what would fol- 
low ? It would follow that this, like other parables of 
the Saviour, is founded upon acknowledged facts. 
Among other facts the following are recognized, what- 
ever the scope or design intended, namely, that there 
are such men as rich men and beggars, and that some 
of the former fare sumptuously and are clothed in pur- 
ple and fine linen, while some poor beggars lie at their 
gates covered with sores ; that there are such animals 
as dogs, such a thing as death, such a thing as angels, 
such a place as hell, (Hades,) where departed souls 
are tormented. Now if these are not facts, then 
has the Saviour founded one parable upon fiction, and 
that, too, without disabusing the minds of his hearers, 
who were laboring under the belief of this fiction. 
Would a Universalist minister in our day base a parable 
upon torments in the future state without first inform- 
ing the people that it was all fiction ? So far from this 
are they, that they spend much of their time in efforts 
against the doctrine, in holding it up as the greatest of 
errors. But in no single instance do we find the Saviour 
or any of his apostles so employed, notwithstanding 
they passed their days on earth in the midst of those 



Sec. 94.] Univjersausm not of the Bible. 



275 



who believed and taught the doctrine. Compared with 
moderns they were very inefficient Universalist minis- 
ters ! (Sec. CXXXI.) 

The truth is, Christ has shown us here, in terms that 
few ungodly men can contemplate and be at ease, that 
there is a world of woe. He has raised the curtain that 
intervenes between that dark world and this, and exhib- 
ited to us how fearful a thing it is to be lost. He 
teaches us that our destiny is fixed at death, and that if 
sinners will not yield to the persuasions and heed the 
warnings they have in this world to escape the " place 
of torment" by the means which God has provided 
none others will be employed, neither would it avail 
any thing in their case should one be sent from the dead. 

It has been asserted that there is no evidence that the 
rich man was bad, or that Lazarus was good. That the 
rich man was wicked, and the poor man good, is im- 
plied through the whole passage. Indeed, what of 
force there is in this lies with all its weight against ap- 
plying it to Jews and Gentiles. The rich man, with 
TJniversalists, is the Jewish people, who are to be cast 
down and punished for their wickedness. The rich man 
is a type of this wicked nation. Was he good or bad ? 
No more need be said. 

XCIV. " For therefore we both labor and suffer re- 
proach, because we trust in the living God, who is the 
Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe." 
1 Tim. iv, 10. 

That the reader may have a fair sample of the perver- 
sion of this text, we present the following extract: 

" And it is no less true than strange, that the apostles 
were persecuted for preaching this same doctrine of 
universal salvation. Will the reader take Paul's word 
for the truth of this ? Hear him : ' This is a faithful 
saying, and worthy of all acceptation, for therefore we 



276 



U^IVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the 
living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of 
those that believe.' Now God is the Saviour of no 
more than he saves, and hence, if Paul can be credited 
as to the cause of his labor and reproach, it was for 
believing and preaching the salvation of all men." — 
Trumpet, No. 805. 

Universalists would render this passage subservient 
to their cause in two ways : 

1. By assuming that the apostles suffered reproach 
for preaching Universalism ; than which nothing can 
be more false. Whatever was the nature of, or how- 
ever extensive the salvation, it was not for preaching it 
that they suffered reproach, but it was for trusting in 
the living God, as all must see who will give a mo- 
ment's attention to the language. The phrase " living 
God" is applied in the Scriptures to the true God to 
distinguish him from the dead gods of the heathen. 
1 Thess. i, 9. Paul, Timothy, and others, preached him, 
and exposed the folly of those who worshiped idols. 
Acts xvii, 16-30. Their work was a crusade against 
idolatry, and for this they suffered reproach. 

2. Universalists assume from this text that all men 
will be holy and happy in the future state. But has 
Paul said any such thing in the passage ? Let us see. 
That God is the Saviour of all men we firmly believe. 

(1.) He is the providential Saviour of all men living. 
Acts xvii, 28. 

(2.) He is the gracious Saviour of all men. John i, 9 ; 
Titus ii, 11, 12. 

See, also, Sec. XXIX, where Rom. v, 18, 19, is exam- 
ined. Universalists hold that all men will be saved in 
the future state by the resurrection. Speaking of the 
common salvation named in this passage, Mr. William- 
son says : u Well, then, if man's resurrection from the 
dead depends upon God alone, and no human power 



Sec. 94.] Uniyeesalism not of the Bible. 277 

can effect it, so must the state and condition of man de- 
pend equally upon God, and be equally beyond the 
reach of human agency." " The truth is, that man can 
by his faith and works do something toward ameliorat- 
ing his condition here ; but he cannot procure his resur- 
rection from the dead, and if he cannot procure the 
thing itself, much less can he procure any modifications 
of it. AM that man is, and all that he can be in the 
resurrection, he must owe to God alone ; his feeble work 
cannot reach one line beyond the grave." After speak- 
ing of what is to be accomplished by the resurrection, 
he adds : " This is the salvation which God has pre- 
pared for a world, and in this sense God is the Saviour 
of all men." — Expo, and Def. of ZT. 9 pp. 167-169. 

Mr. Whittemore says : " This heavenly image which 
we lost we obtain back again at the resurrection of the 
dead," " They will be children of God, bearing a moral 
likeness to him. This will be the state of all who shall 
be raised from the dead." — Guide, pp. 37 and 44. 

Reader, can you believe that the apostle, in the text 
under consideration, meant to say that God will become 
the Saviour of all men in the resurrection state, espe- 
cially in the present life, of those that believe ? This 
you must believe if you receive the construction Uni- 
versalists put upon the apostle's words. They refer one 
branch of it to the future state, and the other to the 
present life, which is wholly unauthorized. They tell 
us that the special salvation pertains to this life, and the 
common to the future. Now if we receive it as true 
that God will become the Saviour of all men in the 
future state, while he is the special Saviour of those 
that believe in this life, then is the salvation of this life 
greater and more glorious than the salvation of heaven ; 
for God is the Saviour especially of those that believe, 
that is, he is their Saviour in a higher sense than he is 
the Saviour of all men. None will deny but the Bible 



278 Uniyersalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



represents the salvation of the heavenly state as infi- 
nitely greater than the salvation of believers in this life, 
however holy they may be. But Universalists, by re- 
ferring one part of this text to the future, and the other 
to the present life, have made the heavenly salvation 
the lesser, or common, while the greater, or special, sal- 
vation is in this world ! We ask, By what authority 
do Universalists take their clissecting-knife and cut this 
text into two portions, referring a part to the future 
state, and a part to this world ? The most superficial 
thinker upon the subject will see that it either wholly 
refers to this world, or else it wholly refers to the future. 
We deny the future-state reference of any part of it. 
The apostle was speaking of what then existed. He 
first states that he and his brethren suffer reproach for 
trusting " in the living God." He then states that God 
is (not will be, in the resurrection) the Saviour of all 
men, especially of those that believe. 

It is true, that those who experience this special sal- 
vation through faith, if they continue in the faith, will 
be saved in the future world ; for Paul, in view of 
death, could say, (2 Tim. iv, 7, 8 :) "I have kept the 
faith ; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of 
righteousness," etc. 

Mr. Williamson, speaking of the word " especially" 
says : " The idea is, that this word limits the salvation 
of God to believers alone. Now Paul wrote to Timo- 
thy saying : ' The cloak that I left with thee at Troas, 
bring with thee when thou comest, and the books, but 
especially the parchment.' There is precisely as much 
reason in saying that Paul did not want the cloak and 
books, because he said c especially' the parchment, as 
there is in saying that God is not the Saviour of any but 
believers, because the text says especially of them that 
believe ; and if I tell you that Paul wanted both the 
cloak and books, you ought to object at once, and re- 



Sec. 95.] Univeksalism not of the Bible. 



279 



mind me that he said he especially wanted the parch- 
ment." — Expo, and JDef. of U., p. 166. 

This is what is called in logic a " false issue." It is 
based upon the assumption that it is denied that God is 
the Saviour of all men ; whereas no Christian writer, to 
our knowledge, ever did so ; but on the contrary it is 
contended, in opposition to Universalists, that he is the 
Saviour of all men, and not that he will become such in 
eternity. 

It will be time enough to use this illustration when 
we deny that God is the Saviour of all men, and when 
Universalists shall have proved that it indicates the sal- 
vation of all in the immortal state. The book and parch- 
ment illustration is just no illustration of the case. 

By the quotations it will be seen that Universalists 
consider the resurrection of all men as equivalent to 
the salvation of all men. To express their views, then, 
the text should read : " Therefore we both labor and 
suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, 
who will raise all men from the dead, especially those 
that believe !" 

A writer in the " Banner," some years since, made quite 
a flourish over our admission that God is the Saviour 
of all men, and called us u an unconscious Universalist." 
He bases his argument upon the immutability of God 
thus : " Now if God is the Saviour of all men, of course 
he always will be the Saviour of all, from the fact that 
he changes not, We should think that any man, with- 
out his logical glasses, could discover from the nature 
of God, that whatever he toas, he is, he always will be" 
By applying his own logic it will be seen that Mr. J. H. 
S. is an unconscious believer in the endless anger of God. 
" God is angry with the wicked every day." Psa. vii, 11. 
Now, if God was angry with the wicked when the 
Psalmist wrote, he is now angry with the wicked, and 
" always will be" God's anger, then, is endless. Paul, 



280 Univeesausm xot of the Bible. [Part I, 



speaking of the vengeance of God, says : "It is a fearful 
thing to fall into the hands of the living God.'' Heb. x, 31. 
Now if it was a fearful thing to fall into the hands of 
God because of his vengeance, it is now, and " always will 
be" for " he changes not." But how does endless ven- 
geance comport with the endless salvation of all men ? 
(Sec. XVIII.) The same application might be made to 
2 Kings xxii, 13 ; Psa. v 3 5 ; xi, 5, and a host of other 
texts. If the man has proved any thing by his argu- 
ment, he has proved Universalism to be false. One step 
more. If the upchangeableness of God secures the sal- 
vation of all in the immortal state, because he is the 
Saviour of all now, then for the same reason the salva- 
tion of heaven and of this world must be exactly the 
same, not only in nature, but also in degree ; for, accord- 
ing to the argument, what he is to his creatures as 
Saviour now he always will be ; and as there is now 
much of sin and misery in existence, while God is the 
Saviour of all men, so there always will be, for " he 
changes not." If this argument is sound, nothing is 
gained by any of our race in exchanging worlds, and so 
Paul was mistaken when he said, ;t to die is gain." Xo 
more need be said to show the weight of such an argu- 
ment. 

"We see, then, that using this text to prove the salva- 
tion of all men in the future state, or to prove that the 
apostles were persecuted for preaching Universalism, is 
a gross perversion, of its clear and evident teaching. 

XCV. " Then said Jesus unto them, Take heed and be- 
ware of the leaven (doctrine, verse 12) of the Pharisees 
and of the Sadducees." Matt, xvi, 6. 

Mr. Whittemore, referring to this text, says, u Jesus 
warned the people against the doctrine of the Pharisees, 
who are well known to have believed in endless punish- 
ment." — Guide, p. 42. 



SeC. 95.] UxiVEKSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



281 



We know that the Pharisees believed in endless pun- 
ishment ; and we also know that it is a gross perversion 
of our Lord's words to say, that in this text his disciples 
are warned against this doctrine. An Atheist might, 
with just as much propriety, force these words into his 
service by saying, " Jesus warned the people against 
the doctrine of the Pharisees, who are well known to 
have believed in the being of God" and thus prove that 
the Saviour was an Atheist, and that he taught his dis- 
ciples Atheism! Give us the liberty taken with this 
text, and we will take the position that a Christian ought 
not to believe in the being and unity of God, a general 
providence, the immortality of the soul, a resurrection, 
or eternal bliss ; and should any call in question such 
unbelief, they shall be silenced with, "beware of the 
doctrine of the Pharisees," for they held all these doc- 
trines. Had the Jews been asserting their doctrine of 
eternal punishment, or calling in question our Saviour's 
Universalism, there might be some propriety in consid- 
ering the warning as against future punishment ; but 
nothing of the kind appears in the context.* 

This warning appears to have been directed against 
the superstitious and hypocritical teachings of the Jews 
about signs. The Jewish people, it is well known, were 
desirous of the appearing of the Messiah ; but by the 
erroneous doctrines which had obtained anion & them rel- 
ative to the manner of his coming and the nature of his 
reign, they were led to reject him, and still to look for 
the signs of his appearing. Hence the Pharisees and 
Sadducees insultingly and hypocritically ask him for a 
sign, verse 1. Our Saviour, after upbraiding them with 
dullness of apprehension, and calling them hypocrites, 

* Mr. Thayer, a Universalist minister, asserts that endless punish- 
ment was the popular doctrine, both of Jews and Pagans, in the 
Saviour's time, and also, that the Saviour maintained a position of 
''-entire silence" toward it. — Hist, of E. Punishment, p. 137. 



282 



Universalis^ not of the Bible. [Part I, 



and a wicked and adulterous generation, seeking after a 
sign, declares, " There shall no sign be given unto it, but 
the sign of the prophet Jonas." See verses 3 and 4. 
Christ had already wrought miracles in their presence 
sufficient to demonstrate his Messiahship, and but one 
more was necessary to fulfill the Scriptures, to take away 
the scandal of the cross, and to establish his religion ; 
that was his resurrection from the dead, which was 
typified in the case of Jonah. 

Of such doctrine as this, that led the people to shut 
their eyes against all the evidence of his Messiahship, 
and still to look for the coming of their deliverer, Christ 
would have his disciples beware; but not of the doctrine 
of future and eternal punishment. 

We may observe, too, that this warning was against 
the doctrine of the Sadducees, as well as Pharisees ; but 
it is well known that the Sadducees no more believed in 
endless punishment than they did in Universalism. 
They, too, were the enemies of our Lord, as well as the 
Pharisees. In Luke xii, 1, the Saviour warns his dis- 
ciples against u the leaven of the Pharisees," which he 
says is £t hypocrisy." But we think his meaning in 
Matt, xvi, 6, is given above ; for, says Paul, (1 Cor. i, 
22,) ct The Jews require a sign." 

We assert, That while the Saviour exercised his 
ministry among believers in endless punishment, he 
never pointed it out as an error, or warned the people 
against it in a single instance, and that this omission 
can never be reconciled with the idea that he teas a 
teacher of Universalism' The text here examined is the 
only one we have ever seen produced to disprove this 
position, and with what force the reader can judge. (See 
Sec, CXXXI.) 

XCVI. " And this I say, that the covenant, that was 
confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, wmich was 



Sec. 96.] UxiVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



283 



four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, 
that it should make the promise of none effect. Is the 
law then against the promises of God ? God forbid." 
Gal. iii, 17, 21. 

In answer to an objection raised by himself, that Uni- 
versalists keep the threatenings of God concealed, Mt 
^Williamson quotes these texts, and says, "I know, as 
well as you can know, that there are many threatenings 
in the law, but I tell you that these are not against the 
promises ; and when you explain them in such a manner 
as to make them conflict with the promises, you pervert 
them." Mr. W. then goes on to state that endless pun- 
ishment cannot be true, for it is against the promises, tak- 
ing for granted what he would do well to prove, namely, 
that God has promised to save the whole human race in 
the future state. And then referring to Rev. xxi, 4, he 
adds, "Here is the covenant: it promises with the most 
solemn certainty that there shall come a time when 
there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, 
neither shall there be any more pain." — Ex. and Def. of 
U., p. 144. 

This writer perverts Gal. iii, 17-21, by making it teach 
that God convenanted with Abraham to make all the 
human race holy and happy in eternity when no such 
promise was ever made. (Sec, I.) The apostle in the 
chapter shows that justification by faith is promised in 
the covenant, that the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, 
might become heirs if thev would believe in Christ. Mr. 
W. perverts Rev. xxi, 4 by forcing it to teach that there 
shall be no more death, sorrow, crying, or pain, for any 
of the human family ; whereas this is affirmed of the in- 
habitants of the New Jerusalem only. Turn to it and 
read what precedes and follows. See also Sec. 
LXXXVI, where it is examined. 

That which requires such gross perversions to sustain 
it cannot be the truth of God. 



284 UniverSaLism not of the Bible. [Part i 



XCVII. 44 Then was Jesus led of the Spirit into the 
wilderness to.be tempted of the devil," etc. Matt, iv, 
1-11 ; Luke iv, 1-13 ; Mark i, 12, 13. 

The doctrine of the existence of the devil enters so 
far into the essence of Christianity that those who deny 
it generally deny all the peculiar and fundamental doc- 
trines of the Bible. No man is properly acquainted with 
the condition of his race until he sees that " the whole 
world lieth in the wicked one." 1 John v, 19. (See 
Clark in loco,) Ministers do not execute their high com- 
mission until they turn men " from the power of Satan 
to God." Acts xxviii, 18. "For this purpose the Son 
of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works 
of the devil." 1 John iii, 8. Only the existence and works 
of the devil can account for the advent and death of the 
Son of God. A man's religious sentiment may usually 
be detected by what he holds respecting the devil. If 
lie will have it that the devil means evil propensities, 
carnal mind, or persecuting Jews, you may generally 
class him with the so-called liberals^ whien in general is 
but another name for modern infidels. Qne grand device 
of the devil is to beget a disbelief in his own existence, 
for he knows that a in vain the net is spread in the sight 
of any bird," Prov. i, 17. This done he springs his 
snare, and his victims u are taken captive by him at his 
will," boasting all the while of their superior liberty and 
light, and crying out, " no personal devil." To this class 
of men, especially those of them who are obliged to pro- 
fess a regard for the Bible in order to teach their errors, 
the Saviour's temptation has ever proved a source of 
trouble. As a theological curiosity, and a specimen of 
the treatment of this subject by the visible father of 
American Universalism, we present the following from 
Mr. Ballou. He inquires : 

" But what means the Scripture, which speaks of a 



Sec. 97.] UxiVEESALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 



285 



devil? one who was a liar from the beginning, etc. I 
answer : I have no objection to believing that there is 
such a devil as the Scriptures speak of. He is called the 
old serpent, and is the same I have described which 
beguiled the woman in the beginning ; and it is the 
carnal mind which is enmity against God. Any 
person who is wholly dictated by a fleshly mind may 
justly be called a devil, as in the case of Judas and 
Peter. As our Lord said to the Jews, also, c Ye are of 
your father, the devil ; and the lusts of your father, ye 
will do.' But says the objector, Do you think our 
Saviour was tempted by the powers of the flesh when it 
was said he was tempted by the devil ? I ask in my 
turn, For what is this particular circumstance introduced ? 
If we cannot prove, from our own experience, that we 
are tempted by some other being than our own fleshly 
appetites, would it be any thing more than a speculative 
belief to admit another tempter ? But, says the objector, 
that does not answer the question. Then let us look at 
his temptations ; when he hungered, he was tempted ; by 
what? and to what? Answer, by hunger, to turn 
stones into bread. Here was a fleshly appetite. When 
he had a view of all the kingdoms of the earth, and their 
worldly glory, he was tempted to avail himself of them. 
Here was natural ambition, such as gave rise to the vic- 
tories of an Alexander. "When on the pinnacle of the tem- 
ple he was tempted to cast himself down, as it was writ- 
ten concerning him, that God would give his angels 
charge over him, etc. Here was that passion which 
gives rise to presumption, and wishes to avoid duty. 
But it is said, the devil taketh him about, thus and so ; 
not literally, however, for there is no mountain in the 
world that commands a prospect of but a small part of 
the kingdoms of the vjorld. The exceeding high mount- 
ain on which our Redeemer stood when he saw all the 
kingdoms of the w T orld, and the glory of them, was the 



286 



Uniyersalism not of the Bible. [Part f, 



mountain of human pride. Remember, when a person 
is on a mountain the mountain is beneath his feet. So 
was this mountain of human pride beneath the feet 
of our sinless Redeemer."' — Ballou on Atonement, pp. 
51, 52. 

Here is Universalist theology with all its beauties. 
The exceeding high mountain is the mountain of human 
pride, and by the assistance of the devil (Matt, iv, 8) the 
Saviour has got human pride beneath his feet ! ! But 
what is this devil? Mr. B. has just told us that "it is 
the carnal mind, which is enmity against God" He has 
told us, too, that this mountain of human pride was 
" beneath the feet of our sinless Redeemer" 

It comes to this, then : the sinless Redeemer's carnal 
mind, which is enmity against God, placed him in such 
a position that human pride was beneath his feet. 
Abominable ! Did the Saviour have a carnal mind or 
enmity to God urging him on in this direction ? Is it by 
the carnal' mind that victory is gained over human 
pride ? Was the holy Saviour inflated with human pride 
before his conflict with Satan ? Mr. Ballou flatly con- 
tradicts himself by first saying that the devil is the carnal 
^ mind, which the Saviour must have had in order to be 
tempted by it, and then calling the Saviour the " sinless 
Redeemer." The fact is clear that there is no possible 
way to get rid of the idea of a personal devil in the 
temptation of Christ without making the Saviour a 
sinner, which is to contradict the Bible. 1 Pet. ii, 22 ; 
Heb. vii, 26 ; 1 John iii, 5 ; Rev. iii, 7. 

Let us apply Mr. Ballou's theory to that important 
passage found Eph. vi, 12 : "For we wrestle i ot against 
flesh and blood, but against principalities, against pow- 
ers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, 
against spiritual wickedness in high places." 

This is given by the apostle to prepare his brethren 
to stand against "the wiles of the devil." Ver. 5. Says 



Sec. 97.] UXIYEESALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



287 



Mr. Ballou, "Any person who is wholly dictated by a 
fleshly mind may be justly called a devil." But the apostle 
says, in striving against the devil, " we wrestle not with 
flesh and blood." So we see that Mr. B. and the Script- 
ures are at odds again. 

Apply the Universalist theory of personification to 
Matt, viii, 28-34, where it is stated that the devils 
besought the Saviour that, in case he cast them out, he 
would suffer them to go into a herd of swine. " And he 
said, Go ; and when they were come out, they went into 
the herd of swine," etc. In this account, who besought 
Christ to suffer them to enter into the swine? Were 
they evil principles, fleshly minds, carnal natures, or in- 
sanity 1 Did these, or any of them, leave these men and 
enter the swine ? Preposterous ! Says Dr. Clarke upon 
this passage : " Certain doctors in both sciences, divinity 
and physic, gravely tell us that these demoniacs were 
only common madmen, and that the disease was sup- 
posed, by the superstitious Jews, to be occasioned by 
demons. But, with clue deference to great characters, 
may not a plain man be permitted to ask, By what figure 
of speech can it be said that c two diseases besought — 
went out— filled a herd of swine — rushed down a preci- 
pice? etc. What silly trifling is this ! Some people's 
creeds will neither permit Gocl nor the devil to work ; and, 
in several respects, hardly to exist. For he who 
denies divine inspiration will scarcely acknowledge dia- 
bolical influence." Well might Dr. Clarke call this 
" silly trifling ! " Whatever might be thought of their 
opinions, such men would certainly command more re- 
spect for themselves were they to come out boldly, as 
did their former brother, Abner Kneel and, and cast 
aside the whole book of God. That the Universalist 
denomination is rife with skeptical views concerning 
some of the plainest teachings of the Bible is well known 
to many. Its advocates have been for a long time warm- 



288 UNIVERSALIS^ NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I. 

ing and nourishing the serpent Infidelity into vigorous 
life. Thus strengthened in the order, he has grown 
rampant, and it has been with some degree of difficulty 
that the leaders have prevented a full exhibition of his 
.ugly proportions to the gaze of those without. A reso- 
lution, passed by the Boston Association of Universalists, 
at Cambridgeport, Xov. 1, 1847, furnished the occasion 
for their tearing the masks from each other's faces. The 
resolution was against certain rank Infidel sentiments, 
which some, more bold than the rest, had begun to pro- 
claim openly. (Sec. CXVII.) The aggrieved brethren 
subsequently published "A Statement of Facts," show- 
ing most clearly that they had adopted no new method 
to dispose of offensive Scriptures ; that Mr. Ballou long 
before this had been as infidel as they were. As an il- 
lustration of this, Mr. J. W. Hanson, whose name, with 
others, is appended to the document, and is still a minis- 
ter of the order, gives the following anecdote : 

"The following incident is related by the respectable 
physician mentioned therein, who is ready to vouch for 
its substantial accuracy: In the year 1814 Father Bal- 
lou preached in the old township of Dunstable, and was 
entertained by Mr. Hunt, father of Eben Hunt, M.D., 
now of Dauvers. On reaching the house at the close 
of the services an older brother of Eben's, who was 
said to be somewhat skeptical, said to Mr. Ballou : 
' TVhat do you make of the account of the devils which 
were driven into a herd of swine ? 5 4 Ah ! 5 said the 
old gentleman, 4 1 was always sorry they put that 
story in ! ' " 

The infidelity here developed needs no comment. 
Hear Mr. Hanson again in the same document : 

"That the principle which, when logically carried 
out, results in Rationalism is very general in the Uni- 
versalist body, is veritably true. Rev. A. A. Minor was 
asked, during the recent session at Cambridgeport, if 



Sec. 97.] UxiVEESALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



289 



he believed that Christ cast out devils from a human 
body. He answered, 4 Most assuredly I do. 5 The reply 
was, 'You are the first ■ Universalist I ever heard say so.' 
Rev. L. R. Page replied, 6 And you are the first I ever 
heard deny it.' This conversation needs to be explained 
to convey a correct idea. There is not a single Univer- 
salist preacher who believes that Christ ever cast out 
devils or demons from a human being. They believe 
that those who were operated upon by the Saviour were 
insane or epileptic. And yet the Bible says nothing of 
the sort. Whenever, therefore, a Universalist discovers 
the word demon or devil, as he does not believe in such, 
he exercises rationalistic principles, and calls it 
insane. Why does he then fault those who apply the 
same principle to other subjects ? The Jews believed 
that literal devils possessed men, and Christ used their 
precise phraseology. The Universalist " Commentary " 
may say that Christ cured men of epileptic fits : the Bible 
says he cast out devils" — St. of Facts, Feb. 5, 1848.* 

Here it is contended, not by an enemy to Universal- 
ism, but by one of its advocates in good standing in the 
order, that the Bible teaches just what Christians have 
ever believed concerning the Saviour's casting out 
devils, and that Universalists preachers do not believe 
it. "What is all this but an admission that the Bible 
and Universaiism stand opposed to each other? Yet 
these men, who thus assert their own supremacy over 
the Bible, stand up behind it and preach to the people ! 
With such license and recklessness, what matters it to 
them whether they take their text from Sinbad the 
Sailor or the Bible, other than that they can more suc- 
cessfully deceive the people by the latter ? 

* We see by the "Universalist Register" of 1872 that Mr. J. W. 
Hanson, who made these statements, is still an important man in the 
order, being the Secretary of the Illinois State Convention of Univer- 
salists. 

19 



290 



Univeesalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



The text in James i, 14 is brought against the person- 
ality of the devil. It reads thus: "But every man is 
tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and 
enticed." The argument amounts to this: James says, 
men, when tempted, are drawn away by their own 
lusts; therefore, there is no personal devil to tempt 
men. This is as logical as the following : Floods some- 
times destroy buildings ; therefore, buildings are never 
destroyed by fire ! The objection based upon this text 
vanishes when it is understood that no Christian con- 
tends that the devil is the only source of temptation. 
It by no means follows that because men are drawn 
away by their own lusts there is no personal devil 
who exercises an agency in tempting the fallen race of 
Adam. 

It has been urged that the Saviour called Peter 
Satan, (Matt, xvi, 23,) and Judas a devil, (John vi, 70.) 
Well, suppose that Judas, by a figure of speech, for his 
wickedness was called a devil ; and Peter, for his oppo- 
sition to the Saviour's prediction concerning his death, 
was called Satan : does it follow that there is no real or 
personal devil? The idols of the heathen are called 
gods, and the Psalmist says of wicked judges, c< Ye are 
gods," (Psa. lxxxii, 6 ;) but it does not follow that there 
is no real or true God. Says Mr. Hare, " When it is 
so plain a fact that there is an infernal devil and spirit- 
ual Satan, it can answer no purpose to quote a hundred 
texts of Scripture to prove that men or women are 
sometimes called devils, (that is, calumniators,) or 
satans, (that is, adversaries.) The existence of ten 
thousand human devils and earthly satans brings no 
evidence that there is no chief of demons, no spiritual 
devil or hellish Satan." — Errors of Soc, p. 54. What 
would be thought of us wer we to set up an argument 
against the existence of God based upon the fact that 
images and men are eared gods in the Bible? A grace- 



Sec. 97.] Universalis^ not of the Bible. 



291 



less work, truly; but no more so than the work of Uni- 
versalists upon the subject under consideration. A cun- 
ning Atheist could say as many smart and witty things 
against the Bible account of the being of God as any 
Universalist can against the existence of the devil. 

TTe are sometimes charged with believing in an " om- 
nipresent and almighty devil." When Universalists 
attack this " castle in the air," we admit that they are 
sure to demolish it. Christians believe in no such being. 
In Matt, iv, 10, 11, the terms devil and Satan are used to 
designate the same being ; and in Luke xi, 15, this 
Satan, the Devil, Beelzebub, is called the chief of de- 
mons; hence our Lord attributes to him a kingdom. 
Luke xi, 18. This chief has subordinates, (Matt, xxv, 
41,) and these are very numerous, as we are given to 
understand. Luke viii, 30. From these and many 
other Scriptures which might be adduced we are 
authorized to conceive of Satan as the head of a vast 
spiritual dominion, and thus account for the extent of 
the agency he exerts in tempting and seducing the 
world, and that, too, without conceiving of him as om- 
nipresent. When Xapoleon made Europe tremble with 
the terror of his arms his power extended far beyond 
his personal presence, and what was accomplished 
by his armies was attributed to him. So with 
Satan's legions ; what they accomplish is attributed to 
him. How rapidly spirits move is not for us to deter- 
mine. It is ])ossible they move as quick as thought ; 
at any rate, Satan is represented as very active, "going 
to and fro in the earth. 55 Job i, 7 ; 1 Pet. v, 8. 

" Should the impossibility of a finite being tempting 
many persons, in different places, at one time, leave an 
apparent difficulty on this subject, it must be noticed, 

1. That the devil has many demons under his direction. 

2. That we do not precisely know what relation a spirit 
has to place. 3. That though the power of Satan is not 



292 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part f, 



infinite, it may be very great. 4. That we are not sure 
that evil spirits may not produce effects which often 
remain when those spirits are no longer immediately 
present. We know that a moral principle once imbibed 
often produces effects for a long period after the depart- 
ure of the person from whom it has been imbibed," — 
Errors of Soc, p. 5 7. 

It is asked, " Why does God permit a subordinate be- 
ing to accomplish so much mischief as is attributed to 
the devil?" We in turn ask, Why does God permit 
so much mischief as is attributed by Universalists to 
the " principle of evil," or " carnal mind ? " Moral evil 
exists and is produced by subordinate beings; and if 
its existence reflects ingloriously upon the divine gov- 
ernment, it matters but little how it has obtained in the 
world, that is, so far as the honor of the divine admin- 
istration is concerned. We learn from the Bible that 
both men and devils have an agency in producing it. A 
hundred unanswerable questions might be proposed con- 
cerning the origin of the devil and his work; and as 
many, equally unanswerable, might be propounded con- 
cerning the origin and existence of the " principle of 
evil." What important truth is there in the Bible but 
may be destroyed by this process if admitted to be cor- 
rect ? Take the existence of God, which Universalists 
profess to believe in common with others, and who does 
not know that questions may be proposed upon this 
subject to almost any extent, such as no sane man 
would think of answering. " Fools may ask questions 
that wise men cannot answer " upon this as well as 
other subjects. Negatives and artful questions concern- 
ing things clearly revealed in the Bible have formed 
the stronghold of infidelity the world over ; and TJni- 
versalism has reaped a rich harvest from this soil in 
its opposition to truth. The question with the Chris- 
tian is not, What does skepticism say concerning heav- 



SeC. 9 V.] UXIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 298 



en or hell, God or the devil? but, What does the 
Bible say? 

But it is inquired, " Does piety depend upon the be- 
lief of a devil?" Not TJniversalist piety; but true 
piety depends much upon it. Mark it, reader; when 
you find a man who will deny the existence of the devil 
with all the evidence the Scriptures afford of the fact, 
that man's mind is prepared to deny any other doctrine, 
no matter how clearly revealed, if it is not in accordance 
with his feelings. Christian piety includes the duty of 
believing the truths and warnings of God's word. It 
includes the duty of resisting the devil, that he may flee 
from us, ( J ames iv, 7 ;) it consists in the exercise of watch- 
fulness, which acquaints us with his devices, (2 Cor. ii, 
11 ;) and in holding fast the shield of faith, wherewith 
we shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the 
wicked one, (Eph. vi, 16.) These are the influences that 
are upon the hearts of pious Christians, prompting to 
watchfulness, prayer, and zeal in the cause of Christ ; 
and the best heads and hearts that have ever adorned 
the world have been under such influences, being con- 
scious, by the struggles they had with the j^owers of 
darkness, of the personal existence of the devil. But 
those who are blinded by the god of this world, and are 
under the influence of the spirit that now worketh in 
the children of disobedience, (Eph. ii, 2,) who are led 
captive by the devil at his will, (2 Tim. ii, 26,) have no 
such conflicts, and it is not very strange that in their 
pride and self-procured blindness they should deny his 
existence, and see in those Scrip! ures which reveal his 
being the "carnal mind," "principle of evil," or "evil 
personified," or any thing or nothing, as a depraved 
imagination may dictate. 

One thought more. It is abundantly admitted by Uni- 
versalists themselves that the Jews in our Saviour's 
time believed in the existence of personal devils or 



294 Univeesalism not of the Bible. [Part T, 

demons. Mr. Hanson, as we have seen, has asserted this. 
Speaking of Christ, Mr. Balfour says, "He spoke of 
demons as real beings ; of Beelzebub, as the prince of 
devils or demons ; and of Satan, or the devil, as an evil 
being," ("Essays," p. 67) ; and Mr. Hanson asserts that 
" Christ used their (the Jews) precise phraseology " re- 
specting them. Now the question is, Was it any part 
of the Saviour's mission to point out and correct the 
errors of the age in which he lived ? Mr. Whittemore 
shall answer. " Our Saviour, when on earth, labored 
hard to root up the plants which his Father had not 
planted. He knew that error was injurious to man, and 
that he performed an act of kindness and duty in ex- 
posing it. It would be a task far too arduous to men- 
tion all the instances recorded in the New Testament 
of Christ and his apostles pointing out and contending 
against the errors of the age in which he lived." — Trum- 
pet, No. 750. The Jews believed that devils were real 
beings, and not diseases or evil personified, as Univer- 
salists assert. Now if this were false, and if, as Mr. W. 
asserts, the Saviour was so careful to point out and con- 
tend against the errors of the age, we might reasonably 
expect to find some clear and decided opposition, to 
this error on the part of Christ and his apostles. But 
what is the fact? We assert, without fear of contra- 
diction, that not a single instance is to be found in the 
Bible where this doctrine is held up as an error ; but, on 
the other hand, as Mr. Hanson says, Christ used the same 
phraseology that the Jews did respecting it. Why did 
not the Great Teacher rebuke and expose this error if 
it were one ? Why seem to favor it by the use of such 
language as has deceived the Church for eighteen cen- 
turies? Christ, say Universalists, came to save men 
from ignorance ; and yet he left the Jews, among whom 
he labored during the years of his incarnation, in the 
most profound ignorance respecting the personality of 



Sec. 98.] Universalism not of the Bible. 



295 



the devil, and, by adopting their " precise phraseology," 
has entailed this ignorance upon the Church for eighteen 
hundred years ! How unlike is this to the course of 
TJniversalist teachers in this age, who are prompt in ap- 
prising people that there is no personal devil, and won- 
der at and pity the credulity that can receive such a 
doctrine; and then, as if to cap the climax of absurdity, 
they claim to be the only true successors of the Saviour 
in the ministry ! The same views are applicable to this 
that we have taken of the Saviour's treatment of the 
doctrine of endless punishment. (Sec. CXXXI.) To 
the sincere inquirer after truth no more need be said to 
show the falsity of Universalist views upon this subject. 

XCVIII. " The wages of sin is death ; but the gift 
of God is eternal life, through Jesus Chrisi our Lord." 
Rom. vi, 23. 

The author of the " Guide," in constructing an argu- 
ment upon Rom. v, 18, says: "We find 'the free gift 
came upon all men unto justification of life.' This free 
gift is eternal life. See Rom. vi, 23." Thus he uses 
the last member of this text to prove Universalism, or 
that all shall enjoy endless bliss in the future world. 
The passage, it will be seen, presents an antithesis ; and 
if the eternal life named in the second member of the 
verse means endless bliss, as Mr. Whittemore admits 
by the use he has made of it, then the death in the first 
member is endless death. Observe, the death here 
named is contrasted with endless life, and "as no me- 
dium can be found between life and death, the death in- 
curred by sin could not make eternal life necessary, 
unless that death were otherwise eternal. If mankind 
are not exposed to eternal death, they have already 
eternal life, and God needed not to give it by Jesus 
Christ, for this would be to give only what they already 
possess. In other words, if eternal life is the gift of 



296 "OLIVERS ALISM KOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 

God by Jesus Christ, then eternal life was forfeited ; 
which is the same as to say that the penalty of eternal 
death was incurred. 5 ' — Errors of Soc, p. 284, 

An effort has been made to turn the last member of this 
text against the condition ality of salvation, because eter- 
nal life is the gift of God. A false issue is often raised upon 
this subject. Christians are represented as expecting to 
merit heaven by their good works, while Universalists 
are so evangelical as to receive it as a gift. This is 
false. Christians constantly affirm that all merit is in 
Christ. They do not, however, believe that eternal life 
is bestowed unconditionally ; hence they urge the duty 
of a compliance with the conditions, and a use of the 
means to secure it. Does this destroy the idea of a gift ? 
A man is starving ; a friend offers him bread on the con- 
ditions that he will take and eat. He complies with 
these conditions, and is saved from starvation. Was not 
that a gift ? And would a man in his senses thinli he 
had merited the bread merely because he had taken and 
eaten? Surely .not; but he would count that man his 
benefactor who bestowed upon hiin the gift. Man, as a 
moral being, has power to receive or reject the gifts of 
God. Are not all our temporal blessings equally the 
gifts of God ? Yet these gifts are sometimes rejected, 
perverted, and turned into curses. Forgiveness of sins, 
eternal life and blessedness, are the gifts of God, to be 
received, however, on the conditions of repentance, faith, 
and obedience, (John iii, 14-16 ;) for while it is declared 
that Christ "became the author of eternal salvation unto 
all them that obey him," (Heb. v, 9,) it is also declared 
of him who rejects Christ that he "shall not see life; 
but the wrath of God abideth on him." John iii, 36. 

XCIX. " For our light affliction, which is but for a 
moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal 
weight of glory; while we look not at the things 



SeC 100.] UXIYEESALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 297 



which are seen, but at the things which are not seen : 
for the things which are seen are temporal ; but the 
things which are not seen are eternal." 2 Cor. iv 5 17, 18. 

This is the language of contrast. The afflictions of 
the Christian are light when contrasted with the evils 
of sin, here and hereafter. They are but momentary 
when contrasted with endless duration. It is also the 
language of holy confidence under sufferings. They 
" work for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight 
of glory." Observe, these afflictions do not work for 
the Christian mere transient, temporal rewards, but an 
eternal weight of gloey. But Universalism contra- 
dicts this, by asserting that all rewards and punishments 
are temporal — that they are received in this world, and 
end with this life. But Christians look for their reward 
in the future, and not to things seen which are temporal, 
but to things which are not seen, but which will be 
realized in the eternal state. This too is the language 
of degree. "Afar more exceeding and eternal weight 
of glory." The obvious sense is, that our doing and 
suffering here for Christ will enhance our future glory. 

But one form of American Universalism teaches that 
the most devout and holy man that ever lived shall have 
no higher bliss in the future than Julian the Apostate, 
or any other polluted scoundrel. c< All shall be equal," 
is the motto. How utterly at variance is this with the 
words of Paul ; yet he is called a Universalist ! 

For the other form, equally at war with the Script- 
ures, see Section CXL. 

C. "The Son of man goeth, as it is written of him; 
but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is be- 
trayed ! it had been good for that man if he had not 
been born." Matt, xxvi, 24. 

Dr. Clarke comments as follows upon this passage: 
" Can this be said of any sinner, in the common sense in 



298 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



which it is understood, if there be any redemption from 
hell's torments? If a sinner should suffer millions of 
millions of years in them, and get out at last to the en- 
joyment of heaven, then it was well for him that he had 
been born ; for still he has an eternity of blessedness be- 
fore him. Can the doctrine of the non-eternity of hell's 
torments stand in the presence of this saying ? Or can 
the doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked consist 
with this declaration ? It would have been well for that 
man if he had never been born ! Then he must be in a 
state of conscious existence, as non-existence is said to 
be better than that state in which he is now found." 
We are told in argument, to get rid of the force of this 
text, that this was a common proverb among the Jews. 
Admitting it to be so, it does not abate its force when 
coming from the Saviour. These words are not merely 
a common proverb, but a divine truth, when uttered by 
Him in whose mouth was no guile. 

CI. "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and 
joint heirs with Christ ; if so be that we suffer with him, 
that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon 
that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy 
to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed 
in us." Rom. viii, 17, 18. 

This is spoken, not of all men, but of Christians who 
are led by the Spirit of God, (v. 14,) and who suffer in 
the cause of Christ. It is declared that the sufferings 
of this present time are not worthy to be compared with 
the glory which shall be revealed in us, that is, as a re- 
sult of our suffering with him here. None need mistake 
the sense of this passage. It has been the solace of suf- 
fering Christians for eighteen centuries. It connects our 
present conduct with our future destiny, which Uni ver- 
balism impiously denies. Of like import is 2 Tim. ii, 11, 
12: "It is a faithful saying; for if we be dead with 



Sec. 102.] UxiVERSALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 



299 



him, we shall also live with him ; if we suffer, we shall 
also reign with him ; if we deny him, he will also deny 
us." Here is a conditional promise of reigning with 
Christ, and being owned by him at last. Such must be 
"dead with him," that is, die to sin. Such must own 
him before the world, and be willing to suffer for his 
sake, if they would be owned of Christ ; for " if we deny 
him, he will also deny us." 

On, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Ezek. 
xviii, 4. 

This text and some others of like import are produced 
by Universalists to prove the doctrine of no escape from 
merited punishment. Such Scriptures were evidently 
designed to set before the sinner the penalty of the law, 
and to show him what he is to expect in case he con- 
tinues impenitent, but were never designed to teach 
that there is no remission of punishment in case of peni- 
tence. This may be illustrated by civil government. 
Go to the statute book, and we shall find that the law 
expressly declares, " He that committeth murder or trea- 
son shall die for it ; " and yet in that same book there is 
a discretionary and gracious power lodged with the exec- 
utive to pardon, which always means the remission of 
the penalty of the law. So in Heaven's statute book it 
is declared, u The soul that sinneth, it shall die," " God 
will by no means clear the guilty," etc., and yet in the 
same book there is a merciful provision, called the 
Gospel, presented to our view, in which Jesus Christ is 
" set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, 
to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins 
that are past, through the forbearance of God ; to de- 
clare, I say, his righteousness : that he might be just, 
and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Rom. 
iv, 25, 26. God says, " When I say unto the wicked, Thou 
shalt surely die ; if he turn from his sin, and do that 



300 



UxiVEESALISVt NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



which is lawful and right ; if the wicked restore the 
pledge, give again that he had robbed, etc., none of his 
sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto 
him. 5 ' Ezek. xxxiii, 14-16. Observe, none of his sins that 
he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him. Xow 
what is meant by this declaration, if it is not that, on 
condition of penitence and reformation, the sinner shall 
be exempted from deserved punishment for past sins ? 
(Sec. LXX.) 

" That salvation is of grace, that the whole Gospel 
system is of grace, is every -where taught in the Bible. 
But if the sinner actually endures the whole penalty of 
the law he owes nothing to justice, and therefore can- 
not be indebted to grace. For it should be recollected 
that the Gospel is emphatically called grace, because it is 
mercy shown to sinners — it is favor conferred upon the 
undeserving and the ungodly. But those who by dint 
of suffering have borne the whole penalty of God's law, 
and thus discharged all its claims, cannot say, 6 by grace 
I am saved,' but 4 by suffering I am delivered ; ' and now 
strict justice demands that I should be admitted into 
heaven. Their song, therefore, will not be the song of re- 
deeming grace, for they are under no obligations to 
grace. Does the criminal praise the lenity and clemency 
of that government which has . inflicted upon him the 
whole demerit of his crime ? Does he ever think he 
owes his enlargement to the mercy of that government ? 
Neither can a sinner who has suffered the curse of the 
law to its full extent ascribe his deliverance to mercy, 
There is not a particle of mercy in it, If men had 
seriously set themselves to work to devise a system 
directly opposite to the Bible, it is clear they could not 
have hit upon one more suited to their purpose than 
this. 9 '— Dr. FisJc, 

That all punishment is not disciplinary, may "he seen 

Sec. cm. 



SeC. 103.] UXIVEKSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 301 



CIII. " Though he cause grief, yet he will have com- 
passion according to the multitude of his mercies ; for he 
doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of 
men." Lam. iii, 32, 33. 

The Jews are chastised, by being cast off as a nation, 
for their departures from Gocl. The prophet predicts 
that God would yet have compassion, and deliver them 
from Babylon and restore them to their own land ; for, 
<; Though he cause grief," etc. From this it is assumed 
that all punishment is amendatory, and that endless pun- 
ishment is false. " Guide," p. 42. 

That God uses disciplinary punishments is enforced 
from every Christian pulpit. These chastisements are 
inflicted both upon the righteous and the wicked, with a 
design to bring the latter to repentance, and preserve 
the former in the way of duty, and improve them in 
holiness. u While administering this discipline, God 
appears as a father correcting his children for their good, 
mingling the assurance of his love with every stroke, and 
showing himself ready to forgive their iniquities when 
they submit, but threatening heavier punishments if 
these prove ineffectual. That these chastisements are 
also called punishments in the Scriptures, we do not 
deny ; but that they are different, both in the degree 
and design of them, from capital punishments, or punish- 
ments properly so called, we affirm. Even in this world, 
when his creatures have proved incorrigible, God has 
m:\de this difference in the character of his punishments. 
When he destroyed the antediluvians, Pharoah and his 
host, the inhabitants of Sodom, etc., he did not inflict a 
disciplinary punishment, that is, a punishment designed 
for their good ; for he took them away in his wrath from 
the place of repentance and from the means of reforma- 
tion."— Merritt. The Bible represents man as sinning 
against God ; but Universalism represents him as sinning 
against himself only. 



302 



UXIYERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part T, 



Says Mr. Williamson', u God brought us into exist- 
ence of his own good pleasure, and without our knowl- 
edge or consent ; and he is bound, by the principles of 
his own nature, to do us justice ; and he has no right, in 
the nature of things, to do an injury. The right to 
punish for sin has its foundation in the fact that sin is 
an evil and bitter thing, and its practice productive of 
evil to man." — Exp. and Def., p. 66. Mr. W. informs us 
that he speaks this with reverence ; but really, we should 
not have discovered it in the sentiment. " The right " 
(!) of God to punish sin is based upon the fact that it is 
productive of evil to man, and such punishment looks 
continually at the good of the sufferer. But if this be 
so, then the law was made exclusively in reference to 
the happiness of man, irrespective of the Lawgiver and 
the dignity of his government, which presents an anomaly 
not to be charged upon a divine and perfect administra- 
tion. In accordance with this, there are no wastes to be 
repaired, no insulted dignity to be vindicated, no injuri- 
ous influence to be counteracted, except so far as it re- 
lates to the sinner himself. Man is diseased, and the 
penalty of the law or punishment is the remedy ; and yet 
this remedy is called a curse, and furthermore, Christ 
came to redeem man from this curse, or remedy ! " Christ 
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." Gal. iii, 
13. ~Now what is the curse of the law but its penalty? 
Says Mr. Skinner : " A just punishment is as essential 
for our welfare as any thing that love can do — a remis- 
sion of such a punishment would be a curse instead of a 
mercy." — U. III. and Def., p. 250. If this is correct, then 
Christ has redeemed us from that which is as essential for 
our welfare as any thing that love can do ! Or, in other 
words, he came not to bless us, but to curse us by 
redeeming us from the curse. Such is the theology of 
Universalism. " The law curses men, but the curse 
blesses them ! " The Bible speaks of certain characters 



SeC. 103.] TJXIYERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 803 



"who shall be punished with everlasting destruction." 
2 Thess. i, 9. With what is the sinner here threat- 
ened ? Why, shocking to relate, it is that which is as 
essential to his welfare as any thing that love can do ! 
" Much more, then, being now justified by his blood, we 
shall be saved from wrath through him." Rom. v, 9. 
Wrath of course means punishment. We are instructed, 
then, that Christ saves us from a merciful remedy for 
our spiritual disease ! " Jesus which delivered us from 
the wrath to come." 1 Thess. i, 10. That is, he has 
delivered us from a manifestation of the love and mercy 
of God ! God sends strong delusions upon those " who 
believe not the truth, but obey unrighteousness," and for 
what purpose ? Is it to bless and save them ? Inspira- 
tion declares that the design of such infliction is not the 
good of the sufferer, but "that thet all might be 
damxed," (2 Thess. ii, 10-12,) and this damnation is in- 
curred for not loving " the truth, that they might be 
saved," (v, 10,) and thus damnation stands opposed to 
salvation, instead of being a means to secure it, as Uni- 
versalism asserts. Xow, if all punishment looks to the 
good of the sufferer, and is not a curse but a blessing, 
then God promises the blessing of damnation upon those 
"who believe not the truth, but have pleasure in un- 
righteousness ! " So it seems that the damnation which 
stands opposed to salvation must be hereafter numbered 
among the " exceeding great and precious promises" of 
which the Scriptures speak ! 

The assumption that all punishment is designed for 
the good of the sufferer is completely overthrown by 
this passage alone. Look at the case of Pharaoh and 
his host, and the ungodly Sodomites already named, also 
Ananias and Sapphira. Acts v, 1-10. These wicked 
people were hurried into eternity*in consequence of their 
sins. Was this designed to reform them? As well 
might we say that a man was hung to reform him. 



304 Universausm sot of the Bible. [Part I, 



These, and similar inflictions, have taken place from time 
to time in the history of the world to vindicate the 
government of God, to let the world know that he is not 
insensible to passing events, and as a warning to the living. 
It is asserted that the Jews were punished for their sins 
when their city was destroyed by the Romans. But 
was this only designed to reform the sufferers ? "Was 
this as essential for their welfare as any thing that love 
could do ? Was the Saviour so unwilling that they 
should be blessed with such love and mercy as to weep 
in view of it ? Luke xix, 41. Was the death of eleven 
hundred thousand Jews in the siege of Jerusalem 
designed only to reform those who suffered it ? There 
is but one way for Universalists to meet this, and that 
is to bring forward their doctrine that death ends sin, 
and that all shall be as the angels of God in the future ; 
and thus death reformed the Jews into this state. But 
how will this harmonize with the idea that no man 
escapes any deserved punishment ? Is it replied that 
dying was their punishment ? But how could that be 
if it ended their sins and introduced them to heaven ? 
And then, do not good men die as well as bad ? And 
then a*gain, why this partialism in the case of the Jews, 
as seen in the fact that thousands were sent off to heaven 
during the siege, while to thousands of others no more 
guilty the gate of heaven was shut, and they were left 
to suffer their hell in this world for scores of years ? 
What justice, love, or mercy is there in this ? And yet 
this is Universalist theology. Is it replied that this was a 
national punishment, and designed to reform the Jews as 
a nation? But why, according to Universalist notions, 
should there have been a national punishment at all 
upon that people for rejecting the Messiah nearly forty 
years after he had left the earth ? According to this 
dogma every man is punished for his individual sins as 
soon as he commits them. (Sec. XLIX.) Xations are 



SeC. 103.] UmVERSAMSM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



305 



composed of individuals, and if every individual is pun- 
ished to the full extent, then the whole nation is punished 
to the full extent. Every Jew, then, suffered immedi- 
ately all the punishment that was due him for rejecting 
Christ, and thus the whole nation had been punished. 
And yet God inflicts a punishment upon this very people, 
involving individual suffering for the verv crime for which 
they had all been punished to the full extent nearly 
forty years before ! This is a logical result of Univer- 
salis! teachings, and stands directly opposed both to the 
mercy and justice of God. We deny that the punish- 
ment upon the Jewish nation was designed to reform it; 
and all know that if it was, it has proved a total failure 
for eighteen hundred years. The passage in Luke xiii, 
24-28 Universalists generally refer to the Jerusalem 
catastrophe. Xow whether this is referable to the future 
state or to Jerusalem it matters but little in this argument, 
for in either case it stamps with falsehood the notion 
that all punishment is designed to reform the sufferer. 
Here we beg leave to introduce Mr. Whittemore as a 
witness. He remarks upon this Scripture thus : " 4 Strive 
to enter in,' that is, do not wait, but seek now to be- 
come my disciples ; for the time when you will have 
the opportunity of seeking is short ; many will seek 
to enter into my kingdom when it is too late, and 
therefore will not be able : they will seek when they 
see the calamities that are coming upon them ; but 
then I shall have risen up and shut the door, and their 
time for gaining admittance will be passed. Xow all 
this is literally true: for when Jerusalem was destroyed, 
the Jews ceased to enjoy Gospel privileges, and thus 
the door of the kingdom was closed against them." — 
Guide, p. 148. 

Mr. W. is right, unwittingly right, that is, so far as 
the principle of the divine administration is concerned. 
Xow look at the plight into which Universalism is 

20 



306 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



thrown by this. The Jews are punished in this instance 
for rejecting the Gospel kingdom, and this punishment 
is designed to reform them ; and yet by this very pun- 
ishment they are put beyond the possibility of reform ; 
for, says Mr. W., " When Jerusalem was destroyed the 
Jews ceased to enjoy Gospel privileges, and thus the 
door of the kingdom was closed against them," and so 
closed, that even should they seek to enter in they would 
not be able ! How serpentine is error ! We are in- 
structed in this passage that when sinners are punished 
in consequence of having spurned the offers of mercy, 
and neglected the day of visitation, God does not intend 
their reformation and happiness. He will then say it is 
too late, " I know you not," " Depart from me all ye 
workers of iniquity." Of like import is Prov. i, 24-2 S. 
It is false, then, that all punishment is designed for the 
good of the sufferer. Again : " The sinner is represented 
as being punished according to his works, not according 
to his want s. Every man is represented as receiving 
' according to that he hath done in the body,' and not ac- 
cording to that which is necessary to save him. Christ 
says, ; Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me 
to give unto every man according as his works shall be,' 
not according to what is necessary to bring him to re- 
pentance. Again, the sinner is said to be cursed, to be 
punished, to endure wrath, wrath without mixture, in- 
dignation, fiery indignation, to perish, to be destroyed, 
etc. Xow if all these mean no more than what is for 
the sinner's good — no more than what is essential for his 
best interest — no more than what unmingled mercy deals 
out, as the most tender physician administers a bitter 
medicine to a patient, there were never greater misno- 
mers. Then are wrath and love the same ; then between 
vengeance and mercy there is no difference ; then is 
punishment the means of salvation from sin, the cause 
of punishment, and an effect proves a remedy for its own 



Sec. 103.] UNIVERSALIS}! SOT OF THE BlBLE. 307 



cause ; then is a curse a blessing, and death leads to 
life ! "—Rev. L. Lee, D.D. 

If all punishment is designed to reform the sufferer, 
then it is the will of God that all should reform when he 
inflicts it ; and to adopt the Universalis! views concern- 
ing the attribute- of God and the absolute character of 
his will, it would follow that all do reform when pun- 
ished ; for who has not heard their argument* upon 
w Who will have all men to be saved ?" Upon this it is 
said that the wisdom and power of God are equal to his 
will, and therefore all will be saved in the future. 

Xow this argument is equally valid to prove that all 
men are saved from sin now, for none can doubt but 
God wills it, especially if he punishes them only to re- 
form them. But Scripture and matter of fact contradict 
this. TTe are informed that " evil men and seducers 
wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." 
2 Tim. hi, 13. Xow this class of wicked persons, as 
Universalism assert-, were punished all their sins de- 
served on the commission of every sin, and yet so far 
were they from being reformed that they waxed worse 
and worse. Look at drunkenness and other vices of our 
age, and how often do we witness an illustration of this. 
See Isa. i, 5 ; Jer. v, 3 ; Rev. xvi, 9. ~We introduce the 
insufficiency of punishment to reform, in order to con- 
sider it in connection with mercy. "When we assert that 
if there is no remission of punishment in the Gospel 
plan then there is no mercy, we are told that the mercy 
of God is seen, not in withholding but in inflicting the 
punishment, and that to withhold punishment would be 
a curse instead of a mercy. In contrasting human gov- 
ernment with the government of God, Mr. Skinner says 
of the latter : " God has all wisdom and power, and can 
do all his pleasure. He is never, like earthly govern- 
ments, reduced to the necessity of choosing between two 
evils. Hence, if one is doomed to endless pain it is be- 



S08 Ujsiversalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 

cause God desired it. It is no removal of the difficulty 
to say he has threatened eudless misery; and if the sin- 
ner will incur the penalty we are not to charge the blame 
upon God, or accuse him of vindictive feelings in exe- 
cuting his threatening, for he foresaw and was able to 
avoid this result ; he might, with perfect ease and honor 
to himself, have so arranged his government as to secure 
the obedience and happiness of all. Consequently, if 
there is infinite evil in the penalty it is because God de- 
sired it, and had infinite malignity toward the sinner." — 
IT. 111. and Def., p. 195. 

This argument is made by Mr. S. to prove that endless 
punishment is unjust and cruel, and that all punishment 
is amendatory. The reasoning is sophistical, and, fur- 
thermore, if it does any thing it completely overturns the 
disciplinary punishment for which Mr. S. is contending. 
Let us apply it. " God has all wisdom and power, and 
can do all his pleasure. He is never, like earthly gov- 
ernments, reduced to the necessity of choosing between 
two evils. Hence, if any one is doomed to suffer in this 
world, it is because God desired it. It is no removal of 
the difficulty to say he has threatened punishment in this 
world, and if the sinner will incur the penalty we are 
not to charge the blame upon God, or accuse him of 
vindictive feelings in executing his threatenings, for he 
foresaw and was able to avoid the result ; he might, with 
perfect ease and infinite honor to himself, have so ar- 
ranged his government as to secure the obedience and 
happiness of all in this world without punishment. 
Consequently, if there is sin and punishment in the world, 
it is because God desired it and exercised malignity to- 
ward the sinner." It will amount to nothing to say that 
this suffering is but a means to secure the good of the 
{sinner, for Mr. S. has told us that God " is rever reduced 
to the necessity of choosing between two evils," and of 
course is not under the necessity of punishing men for 



Sec. 103.] Universalism not of the Bible. 309 



their good, for he could have so arranged his govern- 
ment as to secure that good without it. This mode of 
argument is adopted by the whole tribe of Universalists, 
and yet it lies with all its force against their cherished 
notion of disciplinary punishment. It stands opposed to 
matter of fact, namely, the present sufferings of our 
race ; therefore, must be false. On this method in argu- 
ment see Sec. CXIII. 

The conclusion from this argument is, that God pun- 
ishes sinners unnecessarily in this world, which is, to say 
the least of it, unmerciful ; and yet Mr. S. talks largely 
in his book about the mercy of God in punishing the 
sinner ! The truth is, Universalism drives mercy com- 
pletely out of the divine administration. Mr. Skinner, 
as do Universalists generally, resolves all the actions of 
men into the sovereignty of God. He says : " The will 
of God is absolute. The will of kings is absolute ; and 
God is the King of kings and Lord of lords. He does 
all things after the counsel of his own will. Of course 
when he made man and gave him the power which he 
possesses, he did every thing according to his own will. 
It will avail nothing to say man is a moral agent ; for 
why should God give him an agency which would de- 
feat his own will ? This would be planning against 
himself. Nothing is more evident than that an expected 
result of a voluntary act proves that it was desired." — 
Z7. 111. and Def., p. 174. 

Here w^e learn the fatalism of Universalism, " what- 
ever is, is right ; " every thing is according to the will 
of God. (Sec. LXXXIV.) Speaking of the mercy of 
God to man, Mr. S. adopts the following definition : 
" Mercy has been defined to be that benevolence, mild- 
ness, or tenderness of heart which disposes a person to 
overlook injuries, or treat an offender better than he de- 
serves." — P. 202. 

In the same book he asserts as follows : " Justice will 



810 



UxiVEKSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



have all its demands ; every man shall suffer to the full 
extent of his deserts. There is no remission of punish- 
ment, either on account of the Saviour's death or the 
sinner's penitence.' 1 — P. 249. 

Mr. S., by these views concerning the will of God and 
punishment, represents all the leading writers in the or- 
der. We could give the same in substance from the 
works of a dozen or more in our possession. Now with 
these doctrines, where can there possibly be any mercy 
in the system? Mercy, says Mr. S., "is to treat an 
offender better than he deserves." Then he says, 
" Everyman shall suffer to the full extent of his deserts.''* 
~No mercy, then, according to Mr. S.'s own showing. 
We have seen that punishment often fails to reform, and 
that some under its infliction wax worse and worse. Is 
there mercy in continuing to punish such, when God 
not only knows it is so, but willed it should be so ? 
Observe: " An expected result of a voluntary act proves 
that it was desired." There can be no mercy in such a 
procedure. But why should the sinner be punished at all 
for wrong-doing ? He has not been guilty of wrong- 
doing unless it is wrong to do the will of God. Mercy, 
we are told, is seen in punishing the sinner to reclaim 
him. Reclaim him from what ? Why from being and 
doing just as God wills he should be and do ! So distant 
is. this from being merciful, that it is downright cruelty. 
By this strange system the Deity is arrayed against him- 
self. He wills the sin, and wills the reformation of the 
sinner, and inflicts stripes to effect it. The sinner waxes 
worse and worse under the stripes till, rotten ripe in 
pollution, he falls into the grave, and all this in accord- 
ance with the will of God ! With these views of Uni- 
versalists before him, the reader can judge with what 
propriety those Scriptures are presented to prove Uni- 
versalism, which speaks of the mercy of God. From 
what has been presented, we think it sufficiently clear 



Sec. 104.] TJotveesalism xot oe the Bible. 



311 



that all punishment is not designed to reform the suffer- 
er. We should be careful to distinguish between God's 
judicial punishment and his paternal chastisements. The 
sinner has not sinned against himself, but against God. 
To be sure, he has brought upon himself misery, and is 
without hope. God's law is vindicated in his final pun- 
ishment, if he spurns the offers of mercy and dies in his 
sins. It is equally vindicated through Christ, if he re- 
pent of his sins, believes and obeys the Gospel, and is 
thus saved from the punishment of past sins. Rom. iv, 
25, 26. The penalty by which that law is vindicated, 
however, is not designed for the final benefit of the of- 
fender. God has indeed appointed its proclamation a 
priori, for the benefit of the governed, by the preven- 
tion of crime. In this sense we have no objection to call- 
ing it reformatory, as its proclamation operates as a 
warning to sinners. But it is not inflicted a posteriori 
for the final benefit of those who disregard the divine au- 
thority. It avails nothing for Universalists to present 
an array of Scriptures to prove that God sometimes in- 
flicts reformatory punishment, and that some have been 
benefited by such punishment. This is admitted. 

The point at issue is this : Universalists assert that all 
punishment is for the good of the punished. This we 
deny, and have given some of our reasons for so doing, 
with what force the reader must judge. Many more 
might be added had we space to spare. See Jer. xvi, 
13; xiii, 14; 1 Sam. vi, 19. Were these inflictions de- 
signed to reform the sufferers ? 

CIV. "That he by the grace of God should taste 
death for every man." " He died for all." " Who gave 
himself a ransom for all." Heb. ii, 9 ; 2 Cor. v, 15 ; 
1 Tim. ii, 6. 

These, and other texts of like import, are in frequent 
use in Universalist writings to prove their doctrine. By 



S12 



U^iveesalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



their use the construction put upon them is this : 
"Christ tasted death that he might save every man in 
the future state." " He died for all, and gave himself a 
ransom for all, to secure the salvation of all men in the 
future world. 5 ' We say this is the construction, because 
they would not think of quoting them to prove that all 
are saved in this world. It is in the future state that 
all are to be saved. 

Christ's vicarious atonement is discarded by the order 
generally. Says Mr. Skinner : " The whole system of 
vicarious atonement is false." — U. III. and Def., p. 120. 
So say they all, from Father Ballou down to the dim- 
mest satellite. Indeed, there is not a leading writer 
among them who admits that Christ's death was at all 
necessary to save men in the immortal state ; and yet 
they continue to use these Scriptures (" Guide," p. 34) 
in this way, because there is universal language em- 
ployed, and the people can be deceived by it. On the 
contrary, Mr. Ballou says : " That Christ came into this 
world to save us in another, is contrary to all the repre- 
sentations found in the Scriptures." — Lee, p. 14. 

Mr. Whittemore says: "The truth is, we do not 
read one word in the Bible about saving men from 
punishment in the future state. The evils from which 
Jesus came to save men are in this world, and for this 
reason he came into this world to save them." — Guide, 
p. 254. 

And yet in this same " Guide," Mr. W. uses the above- 
named Scriptures to substantiate the doctrine of the sal- 
vation of ail in the future world, because Christ gave 
himself a ransom, and died for all in this world ! Much 
is said by this class of writers about Christ saving ail 
men. But is there any such thing as universal salvation 
by Christ, according to their own positions? What, ac- 
cording to these men, was the great object of Christ's 
mission ? Mr. Williamson says ; " The witness does not 



SeC. 104.] UxiVEESALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



313 



go into court to make truth. He goes there to testify to 
what is already true. So Jesus, in our view, came not 
to make any thing true that was not so before; but he 
was the faithful and true witness, who came to make 
known the truth, as it was in the beginning, is now, and 
ever shall be, world without end. He came to reveal 
the character and purpose of God." — Exp. of ?Z, p. 16. 

Says Mr. Skinner: "Jesus bore witness to God's 
rich provisions of grace ; to that eternal life which he 
had prepared for the world. This was the great pur- 
pose of his mission." But when did he prepare this for 
the world ? " When he created he prepared and se- 
cured salvation for his children." — U. III. and Def n 
pp. 264, 265. 

Here is Universalist theology. Christ never came to 
save men in the future world, for they were never lost, 
or in clanger of being lost there, for their salvation was 
prepared and secured when God created them. Christ's 
death and mission has nothing to do with procuring, 
modifying, or in any way affecting the happiness of our 
race in heaven. All would have been thus saved if 
Christ had never visited our world, for this was all 
made sure when God created man, and " Christ came 
not to make any thing true that was not so before," 
The bliss, then, of the future state is, to say the least of 
it, a Christless thing. According to this view Christ is 
not the author of eternal salvation (Heb. v, 9) to any ; 
and the holy ones in heaven (Rev. vii, 10) are in no way 
indebted to Christ for their glorified state. It will be 
seen that Universalism denies that Christ is the Saviour 
of a single soul in heaven. Yet these same writers, 
who put forth these sentiments, produce John iv, 42, 
" Christ the Saviour of the world," to prove that all will 
be saved in the future state ! (Sec. XXIV, also See. 
XXI.) 

We are informed that the great object of Christ's 



31-i Univeksalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



mission was to testify to what was already true; to 
teach the resurrection and remove ignorance and sin 
from men in this world. Men are ignorant of the char- 
acter and purposes of God. The Saviour came to en- 
lighten them, to bear witness to the truth, Well, what 
is the truth ? Why, Universalism. Nothing else, sure- 
ly. Christ came to remove the ignorance of Partialism 
from the world, and to convince them by his resurrec- 
tion that all would be raised from the dead to a blissful 
state. But universal salvation in this sense has not been 
secured by Christ, for millions have died, and millions 
are now living, who have never heard of him, and there 
'are millions more who have had the Bible, containing 
the history of his mission, who could never learn Uni- 
versalism from it. And as for sin, all know that men 
are not universally saved from it here, and, furthermore, 
according to leading Universalists, Christ never did, nor 
never will, save a single individual entirely from sin ; 
for, says Mr. Skinner, " None can be fully saved from all 
moral evil here." — U. Ill and I)er\, p. 261. 

Xow if none are saved from all moral evil here, and 
if Christ came to save none in the future, as Mr. Ballou 
and others assert, then he saves none from all sin any- 
where. What wretched work these crafty yet blind 
guides make with salvation. Universal salvation ! 
Salvation from what? Xot from sin in this world, as 
we have seen. Is it from ignorance ? Xo; for darkness 
covers the earth and gross darkness the people. Is it 
from future suffering ? Xo : for none have ever been ex- 
posed to this. Is it from punishment in this world ? 
Xo ; for every one must suffer the full penalty. Is it 
from sin in the world to come ? Xo ; for there is no 
condition for man there, but " that in which he is as the 
ano'els of God in heaven.*' Is it from a future hell? 
There is no such place, say these men. Is it from the 
grave ? Xo ; for the popular doctrine with Universal- 



SeC. 105.] UXIYERSALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 



315 



ists now is, that the body will never be raised. Is it 
from non-existence ? Men were never in danger of this, 
for this was guarded against at the creation, as Mr. Skin- 
ner asserts. Says one writer, " I know of no salvation 
for them if their system is true, unless it be a salvation 
of all persevering Universalists from believing the 
Gospel. Such a system may, with much more propriety, 
be denominated universal damnation than universal sal- 
vation. It universally punishes all. and universally 
saves none. 5 ' — Russell. 

CV. <% If by any means I might attain to the resurrec- 
tion of the dead." Phil, iii, il. 

This text stands directly opposed to Universalist 
views. Paul lived and labored 'that he might secure a 
blissful resurrection, and thus connects his present con- 
duct with his future destiny. The only writer we have 
noticed who has attempted to destroy the force of this 
passage is Mr. Harris. After quoting John v, 24, he 
says, " This refers wholly to the spiritual change or res- 
urrection wrought in believers by the power of the 
Gospel in this life;" and he will have it that the text 
under consideration refers to the same resurrection. — 
Future Life, p. 178. 

We are to believe, then, that the holy apostle Paul, 
who had been favored with such a w r onderful conversion, 
and had been raised up with others to sit together in 
heavenly places in Christ Jesus, (Eph. ii, 6,) had not as 
yet experienced a spiritual resurrection by the power of 
the Gospel in this life, but was laboring to attain to it ! 
"What an exorbitant demand Universalism makes upon 
the credulity of its votaries ! 

Dr. Clarke remarks thus: "'T7ie resurrection of the 
dead? That is, the resurrection of those who, having 
died in the Lord, rise to glory and honor ; and hence 
St Paul uses a peculiar word, which occurs nowhere else 



316 



Universalis^ not of the Bible. [Part I, 



in the l\Tew Testament. This glorious resurrection, and 
perhaps peculiarly glorious in the case of martyrs, is 
that to which St. Paul aspired. The word avag-aatc sig- 
nifies the resurrection in general, both of the just and of 
the unjust; e%avag-aoic may signify that of the blessed 
only." (See Sec. XC.) 

CVI. " But if ye being evil, know how to give good 
gifts unto your children, how much more shall your 
heavenly Father give good things to them that ask 
him?" Matt, vii, 11. 

This passage is sometimes used to show that God, who 
is much better than earthly parents, will not inflict end- 
less punishment. The sophistry lies in representing God 
as a father only, and as being influenced by the same 
motives and feelings that frail, erring, earthly fathers 
are. All divine truth is alike immutable. God is not 
only declared to be our father by creation, (Mai. ii, 10,) 
but it is revealed with equal clearness that " The Lord is 
our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our 
king." Isa. xxxiii, 22. God stands in both the parental 
and regal relation to his creatures. But the great effort 
of Universalism is to destroy the latter relation, and to 
exalt the former to human imbecility ! (Sec. XV.) 

Observe : This bestowment of good things is not upon 
all men, but upon " them that ask him" The Saviour 
in this and the four preceding verses is showing the 
willingness of God to bestow certain blessings in an- 
swer to prayer, a doctrine which, if we may credit some 
of their leading authors, Universalists have but little 
faith in. It is not believed by them that he is a prayer- 
answering God. 

Speaking of prayer, Mr. Skinner says : " The change 
which our devotions are intended to make is upon our- 
selves, not upon the Almighty. Their chief efficacy is 
derived from the good dispositions which they raise 



SeC. 106.] UXITEESALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 



317 



and cherish in the human soul."— U. III. and Defi, 
p. 332. 

Again: "The whole effect of prayer and every other 
religious duty must be upon ourselves, and not upon the 
supreme and independent Creator." " It should be con- 
sidered a great privilege, as well as a great duty. Not^ 
let it be repeated, with the view that it will effect any 
sort of change in the Supreme Being, in his disposition, 
in his will, or in his purposes." — U. Manual, pp. 27, 39. 

In keeping with these views, Mr. Ballou says : " The 
necessity and utility of religion, according to common 
opinion, is, on the one hand, to obtain or secure the 
divine favor ; and on the other, to be screened from the 
di>pleasure of the Almighty But if our deductions are 
allowed to stand, it is very clear that the divine favor 
can neither he gained nor lost.'" — Exp. of U., p. 28. 

All must see that such a view makes prayer utterly 
useless, so far as the Divine Being is concerned. He 
answers no prayer, for prayer effects no change at all 
in his conduct toward us, but is, in its effect, wholly 
confined to ourselves. How completely is the Saviour 
contradicted by these sentiments. Christ says that our 
heavenly Father gives good things to them that ash 
him. Xot so, say these men ; the man who asks gives 
the good things to himself! 

Universalist views being correct, Elijah, must have 
found himself in a sad condition in his concest with the 
prophets of Baal. He builds his altar, puts on the wood, 
and the bullock cut in pieces, and pours on his barrels 
of water. Xow, for the demonstration to confound 
Baal's prophets, and to show that there is a God in 
Israel, Elijah prays thus: "Lord God of Abraham, 
Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou 
art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant. Hear me, 
O Lord, hear me, that this people may know that thou 
art the Lord God," 1 Kings xviii, 36, 37. God answered 



318 



Univers axism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



the prayer ; the fire came down, consumed the ma- 
terials, and. licked up the water in the trench, and the 
people cried, " The Lord he is the God ! the Lord he is 
the God ! " 

This is false, says Universalism, for " the whole effect 
of prayer must be upon ourselves" and God was no more 
moved by Elijah's prayer than Baal was moved by the 
prayers of his blind worshipers. 

Christ uses the parable of the unjust judge (Luke 
xviii, 1-8) to illustrate and enforce the duty of prayer. 
The judge is not disposed at first to grant the widow 
her request, but she continues to importune, and he 
changes his purpose and bestows the favor she asks. A 
bad illustration, says Universalism, for the 14 whole effect 
of prayer must be upon ourselves." A correct illustra- 
tion would be this : the woman is improved somewhat 
by her own effort, while the judge is as unmoved by her 
entreaties as a stone, neither changing his purpose nor 
granting her request. This illustrates the TJniversalist 
view of prayer, as all will see. And thus this dogma, as 
ever, is arrayed against Christ. So we might go on 
through the Bible and show the antagonism of Univer- 
salism to its teachings concerning prayer. 

" The divine favor can neither be gamed nor lost" says 
Mr. Ballou. TJniversalist ministers stand up before the 
people and profess to ask favors of God. What is 
meant by it ? Are they sincere ? Do they believe he 
will grant favors, or is it only to be seen of men V With 
such views, what a farce is a Universalist prayer ! The 
Bible teaches that God bestows blessings in answer to 
prayer. Universalism teaches that prayer is a self-stimu- 
lating and re-active process of man ; or in other words, 
that men bless themselves by praying. Quite a dif- 
ference. 

That the natural tendency of pure sentiment, offered 
with sincere and reverential feelings, is salutary to some 



Sec. 106.] 



XJniyeesalism not of the Bible. 



319 



extent upon both those who pray and those who listen, 
we readily admit. But the position that this is all of 
prayer is highly infidel in its character, contradicting 
the Bible and the experience of good men in all ages of 
the Church. "With such views before us from their 
leading men, we are not surprised to hear Mr. Smith, 
who was a popular preacher of the order for twelve 
years, assert as follows : 

" Xo minister of the sect whom I ever knew main- 
tained family prayer. I have known many to ridicule 
the custom, but no one to observe it. I have often been 
in families of the principal advocates of Universalism, 
and passed the night. They have been at my house. I 
found no family devotions at their dwellings. They ex- 
pressed no surprise at not finding an altar at my fire- 
side." 

Persons have lived in the families of some of their 
leading ministers for months and never heard the voice, 
of prayer in their houses. When their brethren in the 
ministry called to pass the night, they abounded with 
witty anecdotes about the Partialists, but never prayed. 

Xow how has it been with Tlniversalists ? Have they 
considered these sinful neglects ? Xo. They have 
boasted of them as virtues. Their prayers were secret, 
such as Christ enjoined ; they were not like the old 
Pharisees, praying, joining Church, fasting, and all that, 
to be seen of men. One would have supposed that per- 
sons who had said so much about praying to be seen of 
men would have had no public prayers at all, and thus 
evinced consistency. But these men, notwithstanding all 
they have said about praying to be seen of men, are seen 
standing praying in their pulpits from time to time ; but 
this has doubtless been much against their inclination, 
and would have been abandoned before now if public 
opinion would have borne them out in it. 

More than forty years ago, in our youthful pride and 



320 



TTniversalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



fancied wisdom, we came under the delusion of Univer- 
saiism. Anxious to hear " Father Ballon," we embraced 
the first opportunity. In his sermon, as has been com- 
mon in the order, he had much to say about the praying 
people of the day, classing them with the old Pharisees, 
praying to be seen of men, thanking God that they were 
not as other men, assuming, of course, that TTniversal- 
ists were the legitimate successors of the publican whose 
efforts were more acceptable to God. He illustrated his 
point by a boy who should be constantly teasing his 
father to do for him what his father had absolutely 
promised he would do. Another son, representing the 
Universalist, who had the same promise, had confidence 
in his father's word, and had no occasion to tease him. 
The whole effort was against prayer and praying people. 
It was received with great satisfaction, and even merri- 
ment, by the motley audience assembled to hear it. Yet 
the man who had discoursed thus stood before his au- 
dience and, in words at least, prayed, or, according to 
his idea, performed the improper act of teasing his 
father ! All must see the drift of such preaching. Since 
so many ministers have renounced the doctrine, and Mr. 
Smith's book has been so extensively circulated, showing 
the blighting influence of Universalism, the leaders have 
found it necessary to change their course somewhat. 
Policy dictated that the denomination should appear 
more pious. Prayer-books were published, and some 
of their ministers and a few of their people were in- 
duced to set up something like family worship. It 
seems, however, that Mr. Cobb had been in the habit of 
"lifting up his voice in thanksgiving and praise" in his 
family, and after Mr. Smith's exposure he published this 
to the world in his paper, which called forth a rebuke 
from Mr. Drew, editor of the " Banner," as follows : 

" We do not suppose this is a very unusual thing 
among Universalist ministers ; but all do not choose to 



Sec. 106.] Cotters alism not of the Bible. 



321 



publish it. Some, it may be, have so literally practiced 
upon the precept of Jesus requiring secret prayer as to 
have kept their practice so much of a secret that the 
world has not known it." — Banner, Jan. 16, 1841. 

Mr. Drew, it seems, was one of those modest persons 
who have ever been very secret about their prayers ! 
Being greatly devoted to the interests of the order, how- 
ever, and the leaders judging it expedient to appear 
more pious " before men," he cheerfully sacrifices his 
modesty, commences repeating the Lord's prayer on the 
Sabbath in his house, and tacitly sanctions his Brother 
Cobb's Phariseeism by publishing to the world his own 
prayers as follows : 

u Every Sabbath day, when we are at home, and at 
an hour when we are not officiating in the church, we 
gather our family of little ones around the domestic 
hearth-stone, read the sacred Scriptures in course, each 
reading a portion, say the Lord's prayer together, and 
then gather around the organ, and with heart and voice 
raise our united voices together in praise to Him who is 
the God and Father of all the families of the earth," — 
Banner, Feb. 4, 1843. 

How long Mr. D. continued this we are not informed. 
Here is Phariseeism with a witness ! After all the ridi- 
cule they have heaped upon others, there is no class of 
men who make a more ostentatious display of their re- 
ligious doings than do these same Universalists. 

With these views we have presented before us com- 
mon in the order concerning prayer, it is not surprising 
that Mr. A. A. Miner, while venting his indignation con- 
cerning a revival in the Churches of Boston, should 
utter the following sentiment : " The more Christian one 
was, the less he prayed." — Trumpet, March 27, 1858. 
If Mr. M. had said the more of a (Jniversalist a man w r as 
the less he prayed, there would have been truth in the 
utterance. As it is, it is highly an ti -Christian and false, 

21 



322 



TJxiVEKSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



We must, however, admit the consistency of the positions 
taken, for if Gocl, as TJniversalism asserts, is, from his 
own nature, necessarily impelled to acts of love toward 
all his creatures, whatever their character, where can be 
the necessity of prayer ? We might as well pray for him 
to be omnipotent or omniscient as for him to be gracious. 
TJniversalism is a prayerless religion, and its influence 
in this respect is seen in every community where it ex- 
ists. On praying for all men see Sec. LXXXI. 

CVII. " For our conversation is in heaven ; from 
whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus 
Christ ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be 
fashioned like unto his glorious body," Phil, iii, 20, 21. 

This passage stands directly opposed to the notion 
that the body is never to be raised, and must, if possible, 
be destroyed in some way. The last effort we have met 
with to do this is found in Harris's " Future Life." He 
says, " The apostle does not say that Christ would change 
i vile bodies ,' but i vile body J which was the Church; 
for the apostle has told us that the Church is the body 
of Christ."— P. 192. 

Christ's body, then, the Church, is the "vile body" 
meant by the apostle, and when Christ comes from 
heaven he is to change his own body and make it like 
his own body ! Well, who belong to this Church ? All 
men, of course, if TJniversalism is the truth ; and Mr. 
Ballou, in a sermon on Eph. vi, 25-27, has asserted 
" that all men belong to the Church of Christ." — Select 
Ser., p. 133. 

But when is Christ to come and change his vile body ? 
Mr. Harris, on the same page, states that it was to be 
changed at the coming of Christ in his kingdom ; and 
on page 190 he quotes Bush to show that his " second 
coming commenced with that new order of things which 
is, in the main, to. be dated from the destruction of Je- 



Sec. 108.] UXIVEESALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 323 



rusalem — which is to be considered as continuing through 
the whole period of the dispensation." 

Admitting Mr. Ballou's position, that the whole hu- 
man race compose the Church, this interpretation of the 
text amounts to the idea that the whole human race are 
to be changed and made like Christ's glorious body, 
under the dispensation which commenced with the de- 
struction of Jerusalem. So the millions of our race who 
had died and were exalted to bliss prior to the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem are to be changed with the rest of the 
vile body subsequent to that event ! Paul must mean 
the Church, because he says our vile body, and not vile 
bodies. What paltry quibbling this ! The honest-minded 
reader will see at a glance the character this work gives 
Universalism and its advocates. 

CVIII. "Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and 
called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting 
God." Gen. xxi, 33. 

The Hebrew olam, and Greek axon, aionios, have 
been discussed so much that they have become, to some 
extent, naturalized to the mind of the common English 
reader, especially so to those acquainted with the con- 
troversy these words have elicited. Most have wit- 
nessed, too, with what an air of triumph the fact is 
stated, by Universalists, that the word everlasting is 
applied to things of limited duration, as the priesthood 
of Aaron, the hills, and the possession of the land of 
Canaan by the Israelites. The priesthood has passed 
away, the hills are not endless, and the seed of Abraham 
have long since ceased to possess the land of Canaan; 
therefore, the word everlasting does not mean endless. 
Our limits forbid an extensive article upon this subject. 
A few hints only will be given, just to furnish the reader 
a clue to the sophistries employed to destroy the true 
meaning of language. 



824 



Universalis^! xot of the Bible. [Part I, 



If everlasting in its true or original sense does not 
mean endless, because it is sometimes applied to that 
which ceases to exist, then by the same process in argu- 
ment it cannot mean less than endless, because it is 
applied to the existence of God, which is absolutely 
endless, as all admit. We see, then, that the sense of 
the word is not fixed by the subject. The subject only 
determines whether it is used in a proper or an accommo- 
dated sense, in that particular instance. Xo point has 
been more clearly shown, by those able men who have 
controverted Universalist views upon this subject, than 
this, namely, that the proper meaning of the Greek noun 
aion, and its corresponding adjective aionios, is endless. 
Dr. Clarke, on the text at the head of this section, re- 
marks as follows : 

" The Septuagint renders the words Theos aionios, the 
ever existing God. From this application of both 
words we learn olam and aion originally signified 
eterxax, or duration without end. Aion. according to 
Aristotle, and a higher authority need not be nought, 
is compounded of aei,edways, and on, being. Hence we 
see that no words can more forcibly express the grand 
characteristics of eternity than these. It is that dura- 
tion which is always existing, still running ox, but 
never runs out. In all languages words have, in proc- 
ess of time, deviated from their original acceptations, 
and have become accommodated to particular purposes, 
and limited to particular meanings. This has happened 
both to the Hebrew olam, and the Greek aion; they 
have been both used to express a limited time, but in 
general a time the limits of which are unknown ; and 
thus a pointed reference to the original ideal meaning 
is still kept up. Those who bring any of these terms, 
in an accommodated sense, to favor a particular doctrine, 
must depend upon the good graces of their opponents 
for permission to use them this way. For as the real 



Sec. 108.] Universalis!! not of the Bible. 825 

grammatical meaning of both words is eternal, and all 
other meanings only accommodated ones, sound criticism 
in all matters of dispute, concerning the import of a 
word or term, must have recourse to the grammatical 
meaning, and to the earliest and best writers of the 
language, and will determine all accommodated mean- 
ings by this alone. Now the first and best writers in 
both these languages apply olam and aion to express 
eternal, in the proper meaning of that word ; and this 
is their proper meaning in the Old and New Testament 
when applied to God, his attributes, his operations, 
taken in connection with the ends for which he performs 
them, for whatsoever he cloeth it shall be forever. The 
word is with the same strict propriety applied to the 
duration of the rewards and punishments in a future 
state, and the argument that pretends to prove, and it 
is only pretense, that in the future punishment of the 
wicked the worm shall die, and the fire shall be quenched, 
will apply as forcibly to the state of happy spirits, and 
as fully prove that a point in eternity shall arrive when 
the repose of the righteous shall be interrupted, and 
the glorification of the children of God have an eternal 
end." 

In keeping with Dr. Clarke's views are the words of 
the Saviour, Matt, xxv, 46 : " These shall go away into 
everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eter- 
nal." The word aionion is here rendered everlasting 
in the first member of the text, and eternal in the second. 
Now, if in the first member it is used in a limited sense, 
then it must be in the second, which limits the bliss of 
the righteous. Mr. Whittemore seeing this has resorted 
to a most wretched perversion, which is, that the "eter- 
nal life" means the spiritual life of the believer in this 
world, and does not refer to the future state. To be 
righteous in a religious sense, which is the sense here, 
is to possess spiritual life, as all m ist admit. The Sav- 



326 



UNIVERSALIS^! NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



[Part I, 



iour, then, is made to utter the following: a The spirit- 
ually alive in this world shall go into spiritual life in 
this world ! " Such senseless tautology is not to "be 
charged upon the divine Saviour. ISTone but a man who 
had a bad cause to sustain would thus pervert the 
words of Christ. The Saviour in this passage instructs 
us that the bliss of the righteous and the punishment 
of the wicked will be equal in duration. 

For Dr. Clarke's remarks upon this text, and Dr. 
Huntingdon's rebuke to Universalists for trifling with 
language expressive of endless duration, see Sec. XLT. 

Mark iii, 29: "But he that shall blaspheme against 
the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger 
of eternal damnation." Here forgiveness and damna- 
tion are set over against each other. Hence, if a man 
is never forgiven he must be damned endlessly, and 
thus the unforoiven are in danger of eternal damnation. 
Another evangelist (Luke xii, 10) says of this blasphemy," 
"it shall not be forgiven" Now an aionon punishment 
for a sin that hath neve? forgiveness, and that shall not 
be forgiven, must of necessity be endless in duration. 
There is no avoiding this. 

It is often said by Universalists that the term endless 
is nowhere applied to punishment in the Bible. But 
why this stress upon the word endless? why prefer this 
word to everlasting, eternal, forever and ever, which 
are the strongest terms used in reference to a future 
state ? The obvious reason is, because the Bible em- 
ploys them to express the duration of the sufferings of 
the wicked.* The term endless is nowhere in the Script- 
ures applied to the punishment of the wicked, and the 

* Our opponents admit that the doctrine of endless punishment was 
popular with the Jews in the time of Christ. But what word or words 
were in use among them to express the duration of punishment if 
those under consideration were not used for that purpose? TJuiver- 
salists would confer a favor by giving information upon this point. 



Sec. 108.] Uniyeesalism not of the Bible. 



327 



same may be said of the happiness of heaven. The word 
is used by the apostle in reference to Christ's priesthood, 
(Heb. vii, 16 :) " Who is made, not after the law of car- 
nal commandment, but after the power of an endless 
life." But it is not said that any shall have this life. 
But suppose endless, the word of their choice, was to be 
found in the Bible connected with the punishment of 
the wicked, would it stand before their criticisms with 
the license they take? By no means, for they could 
pervert it with the same ease that they now do the term 
everlasting ; for the term endless, too, is used in a lim- 
ited sense. Timothy is cautioned against " endless 
genealogies." 1 Tim. i, 4. 

It discovers either great ignorance or depravity to 
make such a demand for the term endless in connection 
with punishment, when, if it were found, its true sense 
would no more be admitted by Universalists than the 
true sense of everlasting is now admitted by them. And 
if the term endless is necessary to prove endless punish- 
ment, is it not equally so to prove endless salvation ? 
We have only to apply their own rules in argument to 
the bliss of heaven, to deprive it of its endless duration. 
Is it said that such Scriptures as, " There shall be no 
more death," (Rev. xxi, 4.) "Neither can they die any 
more," (Luke xx, 36,) prove endless bliss ? We reply, 
that these no more prove endless bliss than " Shall not 
see life," (John iii, 36,) " I will love them no more," 
(Hosea ix, 15,) "Will show them no favor," (Isa. xxvii, 
11,) " Shall not be forgiven," (Luke xii, 10,) disprove it. 
Mr. Morse, a TJniversalist minister, as quoted by Mr. 
Lee, p. 192, says, " The word aionios is equivalent to long, 
lasting, or everlasting." The design of this was to 
make the impression, that the word is as correctly ren- 
dered by long as by everlasting, which is false. The 
absurdity of this rendering will be seen by applying it 
to John iii, 15, " Whosoever belie veth in him should not 



328 



TJlSTVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



perish, but have eternal life." Xo Universalist will 
contend that this eternal life, which is conditioned 
on believing, is future bliss, for our belief or unbe- 
lief can neither o-ain nor forfeit that according to their 
system. 

Xow if " eternal life " in this text may with propriety 
be rendered " long life," then it speaks this : " Whoso- 
ever believeth in Christ shall not perish, but have long 
life in this world ! " But is it true that a belief in Christ 
secures long life in this world ? So far is this from the 
truth that thousands have shortened their days by be- 
lieving in Christ. Stephen believed in Christ. Did he 
have long life in this world ? We might introduce a 
host of texts to show up this assumption. more 
need be said upon this point. 

Sometimes, when it serves their turn, Universalists 
will have it that aionios may be properly rendered by 
age-lasting : hence we read in their books of age-lasting 
correction, etc. Let us apply this to 2 Cor. iv, 18 : u We 
look not at the things which are seen, but at the things 
which are not seen : for the things which are seen are 
temporal: but the things which are not seen are eter- 
nal,*' that is, age-lasting. Things which are only age- 
lasting are of limited duration, and therefore must be 
temporary. The passage, then, is reduced to the follow- 
ing nonsense: "We look not at the things which are 
seen, for they are temporal ; but we look at the things 
which are not seen, for they are temporary ! " Did the 
apostle mean this ? Xothingis more obvious than that he 
meant endless duration by the term under. consideration. 
The Scriptures denote the brevity of human life by 
such expressions as " grass,*' " weaver's shuttle,'* " shad- 
ow," " vapor," " few days," etc. But when they speak 
of punishment they never assert that its duration is as 
grass, weaver's shuttle, shadow, vapor, or a few days, 
but, on the contrary, we find the strong terms everlast- 



Sec. 108.] TJxiVEESALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 329 



ing, eternal, and forever, are applied to it. As we have 
seen, some who deny future punishment have asserted 
that aionios is equivalent to long, age-lasting. They as- 
sert, too, that none escape the punishment due for their 
sins. To show this in its true light let us suppose a 
case. A man dies in the act of willful murder. Now, it 
there is no future punishment, when and where does he 
suffer long or age-lasting punishment for that last sin ? 
Is " eternal damnation," "everlasting punishment," in- 
flicted in the brief space of human life, which is as the 
shadow or vapor ? Is it inflicted in a few years, months, 
days, or it may be a few seconds after the sinful act, or 
even, as Mr. Whittemore will have it, (Sec. XLIX,) 
while sin is being committed ? No more need be said 
to show the violent wresting of the Scriptures upon this 
point. 

Speaking of the terms in question, Prof. Stuart in- 
quires : " If, then, the words aion and aionios are applied 
sixty times (which is the fact) in the New Testament, 
to designate the continuance of the future happiness of 
the righteous, and some twelve times to designate the 
continuance of the future misery of the wicked, by 
what principles of interpreting language does it become 
possible for us to avoid the conclusion that aion and 
aionios have the same sense in both cases ? " Again he 
says, "The result seems to me to be plain, and philo- 
logically and exegetically certain. It is this : either the 
declarations of the Scriptures do not establish the facts 
that God, and his glory, and praise, and happiness are 
endless, nor that the happiness of the righteous in a 
future world is endless, or else they establish the fact 
that the punishment of the wicked is endless. The whole 
stand or fall together. There can, from the very nature 
of antithesis, be no room for rational doubt here in what 
manner we should interpret the declarations of the sa- 
cred writers, We must either admit the endless mis- 



330 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



£RY OF HELL, OR GIVE UP THE ENDLESS HAPPINESS OF 

heaven." — JExeg. Essays, pp. 56, 62. 

Blank Atheism, or no future life whatever for any of 
our race, is a clear and logical result of Universalist ar- 
guments upon future punishment. 

CIX. " The earnest expectation of the creature wait- 
eth for the manifestations of, 9 ' etc. Eom. viii, 19-23. 

The following, with the exception of the application 
of Mr. Whittemore's rule at the close, has been kindly 
furnished for this work by Rev. Charles Munger. 

"Does this passage teach the final salvation of all 
men? This is the question now at issue. The answer 
depends wholly upon c the creature ,' and its deliverance. 
What the creature is, and what its deliverance, must be 
determined by the essential conditions of the entire pas- 
sage and the context. Taken in the order of the apostle, 
they seem to be these : 

"1. The creature waiteth in earnest expectation for 
the manifestations of the sons of God. Ver. 19. 

"2. It was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but 
in hope. Ver. 20. 

" 3. It shall be delivered from the bondage of corrup- 
tion into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 
Ver. 21. 

" 4. The creature is not the same as the sons of God, 
but a thing or class distinct. The last statement is im- 
portant. If the creature is the same as the sons of God, 
then the passage refers only to these, and, of course, has 
nothing to do with Universalism. If it is not the same, 
then this fact is a very important condition or feature 
which must be regarded in the interpretation. Tho dis- 
tinction, as we have just seen, is absolutely essential to 
the claims of Universalism. It is perfectly apparent, 
also, from the structure of the passage and the distinc- 
tion of terms ; thus : the creature itself also shall be 



See. 109.] UmvEBSAiiiSM not oe the Bible. 



3S1 



delivered into "the liberty of the children of God. 
Ter. 21. 

" The whole creation groaneth, and not only the}", 
(it, for the antecedent is neuter,) but ourselves also 
which have the fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves 
groan waiting for the adoption. Ver. 22, 23. 

'"The supposition that the passage teaches Universal- 
ism rests upon the three following assumptions : 

" 1. That the passage is not figurative. 

' ; 2. That the creation includes every human being. 

" 3. That its deliverance is from sin into conscious 
enjoyment of holiness and happiness eternal. 

" The first statement, though exceedingly important, 
they never argue, but assume. The second they usually 
argue thus : The same creature which was made subject 
to vanity shall be delivered. True, the creature is the 
same in both verses 20 and 21; but to assume that it 
means the human race in ver. 20, and therefore it does 
in ver. 21, is a mode of reasoning not very conclusive, 
though quite characteristic. But, secondly: 'Doctor 
McKnight decides that the creature in the passage sig- 
nifies every human creature.' — Guide, p. 47. Very well, 
Grotius, Michaelis, Luther, Tholuck, Rosenmuller, Bloom- 
field, Doddridge, Benson, Knapp ; Robinson, Hodge, 
with many other i learned friends,' decide that it means 
no such thing, but on the contrary £ the visible creation.' 
Thirdly, it is argued 'that the creature' (ver, 21) is 
equivalent to £ the whole creation,' (ver. 22,) and that this 
last expression signifies every human being in Mark 
xvi, 15, and * therefore it does here.' Let us examine 
first the fact, and then the logic. The passage referred 
to is this : { Go ye into all the world and preach the 
Gospel to every creature.' Does this expression here 
include, Universalists themselves being judges, the mill- 
ions of human beings who were dead, and, according 
to their views, in heaven, it not elsewhere, when it was 



332 Universalism not of the Bible. [Part i, 

spoken ? Does the term every creature in this com- 
mission, include absolutely every individual of the en- 
tire race? Evidently not. Universalists interpret the 
commission to refer to the age then present. Thus the 
4 important fact ' upon which they rest their cause is not 
a fact, and the argument is invalid. But suppose it were 
a fact that the expression in this single instance signi- 
fied every human being, does it follow logically that it 
certainly does in Rom. viii, 19-23 ? Paul says, that in 
his day 6 the Gospel was preached to every creature 
which is under heaven.' Col. i, 23. Here the same ex- 
pression is used, both in Greek and English ; but it in- 
cludes only a small part of the human race. And shall 
we say, therefore, it does in Rom. viii, 19-23 ? This 
argument from a single use is certainly as good in one 
case as another. Again : In Col. i, 15, the same expres- 
sion comprehends ' all things created,' and therefore by 
the same rule it does in Rom. viii, 19-23. The logic 
which thus proves and disproves the same thing must be 
false, and the conclusion based upon it is no better. 
The supposition that the term 4 creature ' signifies every 
human being, then, is without any valid proof, the argu- 
ments on which it depends being invalid. That it is 
untrue, is proved by the essential conditions of the pas- 
sage as above mentioned. Take that one, for instance, 
which is not only essential to the identity of the passage, 
but, as before shown, absolutely necessary to the claims 
of Universalism, namely : That 'the creature ' is distinct 
from 'the sons of God.' If it is distinct, then the creat- 
ure is not the entire race absolutely, for the sons of God 
are a part of the race, and distinct from c the creat- 
ure. 5 If it is not a distinct class, then the passage re- 
fers only to the sons of God, and has nothing to do with 
Universalism. What is affirmed of 4 the creature ' is not 
true, in fact, of every human being, and therefore the 
creature cannot have this interpretation. The Univer- 



Sec. 109.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



333 



salist depends upon the literal construction of this lan- 
guage. He cannot admit the figurative without destroy- 
ing his scheme. But it is not literally true that every 
human being awaiteth in earnest expectation for the 
manifestations of the sons of God — was made subject to 
vanity, not willingly, but in hope. It is not true liter- 
ally that every human being has an idea even of the 
adoption — the redemption — of our body, and, therefore, 
they cannot in patience wait for it. Thus the position 
that 'the creature' is every human being must be aban- 
doned because it is without proof, and also contrary to 
essential conditions of the passage. 

" There is but one hope left for Universalism in this 
passage, and that is a ' forlorn hope' indeed. Does the 
advocate of the doctrine attempt to reconstruct his 
scheme upon the basis that 'the creature' includes all 
that portion of the human race not comprehended in the 
class called the sons of God, that is, the wicked ? Then 
it will be a difficult task to show that what is affirmed 
of the creature is true of the wicked, and still more dif- 
ficult to sustain the main position with the evidence 
which the importance of the case demands. Hard as the 
task is, it must be done and done well, or the passage 
must be given up. For unless the apostle intended to 
teach that the w r icked, all the wicked, shall be delivered 
from sin into the glorious liberty of the sons of God, he 
did not teach Universalism in this text. This is precise- 
ly the thing that must be proved. This is Universalism, 
and Paul did so teach, say its advocates, in this passage. 
But that he did not is further evident — 

" 1. From the design he had in view in introducing 
the present sufferings and future glory of the sons of 
God. It was simply this : To comfort them in their af- 
flictions, and to prevent their apostasy from the faith and 
practice of the Gospel. He employs these powerful 
motives. 1st. If we are children, then heirs; if we suf- 



834 Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I ? 



fer with him we shall also be glorified together. Verse 
17. 2d. The sufferings of this present time are not 
worthy to be compared with the glory to be revealed, 
not in all, but c in us? Here he presents the future glory 
of the saints with its limitations and conditions, c if chil- 
dren, 5 and ' if we suffer with him.' Then he writes thus, 
(if the term creature includes the wicked :) The wicked 
also earnestly expect this glory, and they were made 
subject to vanity, sin, and death ; not willingly — not by 
their faults; and in fact they also shall inherit the 
glorious liberty of the children of God. Verses 19-21. 
Thus his entire argument is rendered null, and the 
motives void, by the subsequent announcement that it 
will be the same in the end with those who deny Christ 
as with those who confess him, even unto death. Had 
he designed to induce apostasy from the restraints of 
the Gospel, and give full license to sin, this was the doc- 
trine to do it. But as such was not his design, such 
was not his doctrine. 

" 2, That Paul did not teach here that the wicked 
shall be co-heirs with the saints, is evident from the fol- 
lowing explicit statements in the context. Compare the 
context with the doctrine of the text, as explained by 
Universalists : 

" Context. c If any man have not the spirit of Christ, 
he is none of his.' Verse 4. 

" Text. c All are his, whether they have his spirit or not.' 

" Con. 4 If children, then heirs.' Verse 17. 

" Text. 4 All are heirs.' 

" Con. If we suffer with him, we shall also be glorified 
together. Verse 17. Compare 2 Tim. ii, 12, 'If we suf- 
fer we shall also reign with him ; if we deny him, he 
will also deny us.' 

a Text. We shall all be glorified with Christ, whether 
we suffer with him or deny him. Thus Paul is made to 
contradict himself. 



Sec. 109.] LJniversalism not of the Bible. 



335 



" Look once more at the context and compare Paul's 
testimony there with this interpretation of the text, and 
see how his language and this doctrine neutralize each 
other : 

" Paul, The carnal mind is not subject to the law of 
God. Verse 7. 

" Univer. True, it is not, but it shall be. in every case, 
without exception. 

" Paul. If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is 
none of his. Verse 9. 

" Univer. If any man have not the spirit of Christ he 
need not fear, for he shall have it. 

" Paul. If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. Verse 13. 

" Univer. True, ye shall die, but ye shall live after- 
ward, for whether flesh or spirit be your choice here, 
eternal life is your certain portion hereafter. 

" Paul. As many as are led by the spirit of God, they 
are the sons of God. Verse 14. 

" Univer. All are the sons of God ; and if not, they 
shall be. 

" Paul. The Spirit beareth witness with our spirits, 
that we are the children of God, and if children, then 
heirs — heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. 
Verses 16, 17. 

" Univer. Rom. viii, 19-23, and, in fact, the whole 
Bible, beareth witness that we, even we, c who are filled 
*with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covet- 
ousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, deceit, malignity, 
backbiters, haters of God, covenant breakers, implacable, 
unmerciful,' (Rom. i, 29,) are co-heirs with the saints, 
and shall be delivered into the glorious liberty of the 
children of God. 

" Thus we have compared the doctrines of the context 
with the text as explained by Universalists, and we can 
now see how false the apostle was to his own statements, 
and how he utterly destroyed the logical decency, as 



836 



UxiVERS^LISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part I, 



well as moral effect, of his discourse, upon the supposi- 
tion that in the text he teaches that the wicked shall be 
delivered from sin into the glorious liberty of the chil- 
dren of God. Neither can we avoid these contradictions 
and absurdities in any possible way but by denying that 
he taught Universalism in this passage, or, indeed, any 
other; for the result is the same if he has taught it any- 
where. The argument with the Universalist is now 
closed. We have shown that every position which he 
has taken, or can take, from which to deduce his doc- 
trine, is false. "We have shown that the term creature 
does not mean the entire race of men, nor yet the wicked 
portion of it. But it must mean one or the other of 
these, or the passage cannot possibly teach Universal- 
ism. The true import is very apparent from a compari- 
son of the positions already established. We have seen 
that the creature must be something made subject to 
vanity. It must be, then, the material earth, or its inhab- 
itants. We have shown that it is not man, in whole or 
in part. It must, therefore, be the earth and irrational 
creatures, or one of them. There may be a distinction 
between £ the creature ' and ' the whole creation,' or 
every creature ; the former designating a part, the earth ; 
the latter, the whole, the earth and irrational creatures. 
If so, the promise of redemption is restricted to the 
4 creature,' the earth. It is not said that the whole crea- 
tion shall be delivered, but only c the creature.' That 
the earth is to be delivered from the curse, and will 
share the glory of the children of God, according to its 
nature and as it did before the fall, is certainly not de- 
nied, but frequently intimated in the Scriptures. 4 It is 
certainly in harmony with the design of the apostle, in 
a bold figurative expression, to give an idea of the future 
glory of the saints by representing it as so transcendent- 
ly excellent as to excite the earnest desire of the entire 
creation, animate aud inanimate.' 



Sec. 110.] Universalis:*! not of the Bible. 



337 



" Neither is the method singular, for ' the Scriptures 
frequently speak of the creation as a sentient being, re- 
joicing in God's favor or trembling at his anger, speak- 
ing abroad his praises, etc., as Paul here represents it as 
longing for the great consummation of all things. Again : 
It is agreeable to Scripture to speak of the earth as 
cursed for man's sake ; as made subject to vanity, not 
on its own account, but by the act of God in punish- 
ment of the sins of men. Finally, it is according to the 
word of God to represent the. creation as participating 
in the blessings and glories of the Messiah's reign. Isa. 
xxxi, 1 ; xxix, 17 ; xxxii, 15, 16 ; 2 Pet, iii, 7-13 ; Heb. 
xii, 26, 27.'— Hodge? 

One thought more. Mr. Whittemore has adopted a 
rule in argument (Sec, CXIV) which, if correct, we have 
a right to avail ourselves of. Let us apply it here. 
Does the passage say that all our race shall be delivered 
from the bondage of corruption in the immortal state f 
Does it say that all men shall have the " liberty of the 
children of God " in eternity ? Does it say that there is 
no punishment after the resurrection of the dead? " As 
nothing of the kind is said, we presume nothing like it 
is meant," — Guide, p. 72. 

This mighty battering-ram of Mr. Whittemore's con- 
structing, when turned upon Universalism, beats down 
the whole citadel, walls, tower, and all, for it can be 
brought to bear with destructive force upon every text 
produced to sustain that doctrine. 

CX. " And I saw the dead, small and great, stand be- 
fore God ; and the books were opened," etc. Rev. xx, 
12-15. 

Mr. Whittemore sees Jerusalem's destruction in this 
passage. " Guide," p. 240. But by what stretch of lan- 
guage it can be made to appear that the dead, small and 
great, stood before God, and that the sea gave up the 

22 



838 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part I, 



dead which were in it, and that death and hell delivered 
up their dead, and that every man of them were judged 
according to their works at Jerusalem's destruction, we 
have yet to learn. The phrase " the dead" in 1 Cor. xv, 
35, includes all the dead, say TJniversalists. If this 
phrase must mean all the dead, then it is to be so un- 
derstood in this passage. The connection determines 
this to be the sense here. But were all the dead at Je- 
rusalem to be judged when the Romans besieged that 
city? Furthermore, there is no valid evidence that this 
book was written before that event. Says Home, " We 
conclude, therefore, with Dr. Mills, Le Clerc, Basnage, 
Dr. Lardner, Bishop Tomline, Dr. Woodhouse, and other 
eminent critics, in placing the Apocalypse in the year 
96 or 97"—fntrod., Part II, p. 382. 

We might take up every point in the passage, and 
show the violent wresting by such a construction as is 
given by the " Guide," but will leave it with the good 
sense of the reader, alter giving Dr. Chauncey's view of 
the text. He paraphrases the 12th verse thus : " I then 
beheld in my vision the dead raised, both high and low, 
young and old ; and they stood before the throne of 
God, and were judged in a most fair and equal manner 
according to their works, whether they had been good 
or evil. And that this retribution might be absolutely 
universal, taking in the whole race of men, the dead, 
without distinction or limitation, were raised again to 
life, whether they died and were buried in the sea, or 
whether they died on the land and were buried in the 
grave ; all in the invisible state of the dead were brought 
to life, and judged according to their works." — Salva- 
tion of all Men, p. 376. Dr. Chauncey was a Uni- 
versal! st, according to Mr. Whittemore's definition, 
("Guide," p. 16,) but it never once entered his mind 
that Jerusalem's destruction was the theme of inspira- 
tion here. 



Sec. 111.] Universalism not of the Bible. 



889 



CXI. "Lord, are there few that be saved? 5 ' etc. 
Luke xiii, 23-30. 

By leave of the author, we copy the following upon 
this passage from " Russell's Letters : " 

"Now if Christ had been a Universalist preacher, 
here was a happy opportunity to assail the popular error 
upon the subject of the future destiny of the wicked, and 
to set at least one person right. But did Christ preach 
to him Universalism ? Far from it. Look at the case. 
It is evident he did not teach Universalism, 

" 1. From the question which was proposed to him 
by one of his hearers. Did you ever know an instance 
in which one of the hearers of a Universalist preacher 
ever applied to his minister to get his opinion as to how 
many would finally be saved ? Why, the very fact that 
he is a Universalist answers the question. If Christ 
taught the doctrine that all men were equally and im- 
mortally happy upon entering the eternal world, his 
hearers would have all known this to have been one of 
the peculiarities of his faith, and they would as soon 
have asked him how many gods there were as whether 
few would be saved. 

" 2. If up to this time' Christ had taught Universalism 
ambiguously and with reservation, noio that the question 
is fairly submitted to him, and seeing he must have 
come from heaven — not to save men from perdition, for 
they were never exposed to future sufferings — but to 
teach Universalism, it would seem all ambiguity and 
reservation must be laid aside, and we shall have an 
unqualified declaration that all men will be saved. Go 
to any Universalist preacher with the question whether 
few or many are to be saved and he will answer it at 
once, and in such language, too, as cannot honestly be 
misunderstood. 

u 3. But the manner in which Christ answered this 
question clearly shows that the Son of God regarded 



840 Uniyeesaltsm not of the Bible. [Part I, 

the man who asked the question as in clanger of losing 
his own soul. Hear the answer of Christ. Let it ring 
in your ears with all its awful solemnity, and sink down 
into your heart : c Strive to enter in at the strait gate ; 
for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall 
not be able. When once the master of the house is 
risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to 
stand without and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, 
Lord, open unto us ; and he shall answer and say unto 
you, I know not whence ye are : Then shall ye begin to 
say, We have eaten and drunken in thy presence, and 
thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell 
you I know not whence ye are ; depart from me, ye 
workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnash- 
ing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Ja- 
cob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and 
yourselves thrust out. And they shall come from the 
east, and from the west, and from the north, and from 
the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of 
God.' 

a Mr. Whittemore, in his { Guide,' in which he says 
c every threatening is explained,' has given this text the 
ingenious ' go by.' He quotes vii, 13, 14, attempts an 
explanation, refers to Luke xiii, 24, as a parallel text, 
and passes along. But your preachers and authors who 
have attempted an explanation of this text tell us that 
the inquirer did not seek information as to the number 
who would enjoy salvation in the world to come, but 
how many there are saved now in this world ; that is, he 
wished to know whether there were few or many right- 
eous persons in this world. A grave question, truly ! 
The answer of Christ is referred to the famous destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem. It was then and there the door was 
shut to the Jews and opened to the Gentiles ; it was 
then and there that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all 
the prophets, were seen in the kingdom of God, while 



Sec. 111.] ITXIYERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 341 



they themselves were thrust out, etc. To all this I 
object, 

"1. If the inquirer wished to know the state of morals 
and religion, it is not a little singular that he should 
have gone to Christ to h*ave ascertained the state of 
society around him. He had been brought up in society, 
and had daily opportunities of observing the characters 
of his fellow-men. He knew men were to be judged by 
their fruits, and he could have formed a very satisfactory 
conclusion as to what portion of society were then pious 
without going to Christ with the question. It is an un- 
natural question to be asked under the circumstances. 

" 2. In the answer of our Lord, nothing is said adapted 
to teach the inquirer that Jerusalem was to be destroyed 
at all, much less that the Master of the house was to 
rise up at that time and shut the door of the kingdom 
of heaven. If this was the illusion, the inquirer cannot 
be supposed to have understood it. 

" 3. As a matter of fact, it is not true that Christ, the 
master of the house, shut the door of grace or glory 
against the Jews either at or any time since the de- 
struction of Jerusalem. The Jews and Gentiles, since 
the crucifixion, stand on a dead level as to religious 
rights and privileges. Christ has broken down the 
middle-wall of partition, and his Gospel was before the 
destruction of Jerusalem, and has been ever since, 'the 
power of God unto salvation to every one that belie veth, 
to the Jew first, and also to the Gentiles.' Rom. i, 16. 

"4. The persons said to be excluded here from the 
kingdom of God are not the Jews as a nation, but ' all 
the workers of iniquity? Does all in the vocabulary of 
Universalism mean all? 

"5. If the kingdom of God (verse 28) denotes the 
Gospel kingdom, which Universalis expositors tell us 
was fully set up at the destruction of Jerusalem, then it 
is not true that Abraham, Isaae, and Jacob, and all the 



U2 



UxiVEBSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



[Part I, 



prophets, were ever in the kingdom of God at the de- 
struction of Jerusalem ; nor can it be true that they will 
ever be in that kingdom. How, then, can it be true that 
any of those who heard Christ on this occasion did see 
those Old Testament saints in that kingdom ? Besides, 
the most if not all present on this occasion to hear Christ 
were in eternity before Jerusalem was destroyed. How, 
then, could they see Abraham and all the prophets en- 
tering into the Gospel kingdom in this world ? These 
are mysteries. The more I examine your explanations, 
the more supremely ridiculous and contradictory they 
seem to me. The truth is never thus inconsistent and 
contradictory." 

CXII. " No murderer hath eternal life abiding in 
him." 1 John iii, 15. 

In reply to the idea that suicide cannot be punished 
unless there be punishment in the future state, Mr. 
Whittemore says, "It supposes the sin of suicide to con- 
sist in the overt act, after which the sinner cannot be 
punished. On the contrary, the sin consists in the in- 
tention to do the deed ; and every person not morally 
blind can see punishment enough for this in that horrid 
state of mind which could induce the intention. This 
state of mind may have existed for a long time prior; 
it may have been continually growing worse." — Trum- 
pet, No. 676. The sin lies in the intention, and the pun- 
ishment for that intention consists in that state of mind 
which induced it, " and may have existed a long time 
prior" Or, in other words, God punishes for sin be- 
fore it is committed, and as a man must be counted 
innocent till he commits sin, God by this method is 
charged with punishing the innocent, and thus neither 
mercy nor justice have a place in his administration ! 
such is the theology of Universalism. (Sec. LX.) 

Various devices have been sought out to show how 



Sec. 112.] Universalis^ not of the Bible. 



343 



suicide is punished without future retribution ; but Mr. 
A. B. Grosh, a great man in the order, solves the whole 
difficulty by showing, in his way, that suicide is no crime. 
To the question, "How do you reconcile cases of suicide 
with your doctrine of all-sufficient punishment in this 
life ? " he answers thus : 

" I suppose that the Scriptures regard it as under one 
of the following heads : 

" 1. Either they class it under the head of murder — 
6 thou shalt not kill,' — in which case the penalty, the whole 
penalty, the only penalty, after the act, I can there find 
on record against murder is inflicted on the criminal in 
the very act of transgression; namely, by man his blood 
is shed. I am not very sanguine in this opinion, (that 
is, that it is murder,) inasmuch as there is no appearance 
of malice in the offender against himself ; for the apostle 
says, £ No man ever yet hated his own flesh ; ' consequent- 
ly the act is scarcely murder. 

"2. Or the Scriptures consider it as the act of none 
who are of sound mind, and therefore accountable 
beings. In the cases where suicides are recorded, the 
act itself is never condemned, or even named, as a crimi- 
nal one. It seems entirely omitted in the various and 
frequent lists of actions forbidden to be practiced. 

"3. In conclusion, believing the object of punishment 
to be salvation from sin, I can conceive of no use for it 
for this act more than for any other. There is no 
danger that suicide will ever be committed in the im- 
mortal state. As to the mental guilt, let it be shown 
that the suicide had an evil intention, and that he was 
of perfectly sane mind in forming it, and that it is neces- 
sary for his salvation to be punished after death, and 
there is no one that will object to his receiving all that 
is necessary. As this cannot be done, no more than I 
can prove the negative of the proposition; and, above 
all, as the Bible is silent on the subject, I think it best 



344 Universalis*! not of the Bible. [Part I, 

becomes us not to dogmatize upon it." — - Mag. and Adv., 
vol. viii, p. 358. 

Some infidels have advocated the right of man to com- 
mit suicide when he pleases, inasmuch as he has no 
agency in bringing himself into the world. Is the doc- 
trine set forth by Mr. Grosh any better ? He labors to 
prove that suicide is no sin, and of course needs no pun- 
ishment ; and Mr. Whittemore will have it that sin is 
punished beforehand ! We leave these views with the 
reader, as specimens of the work of two leaders in the 
order, a work every way worthy of the cause it is de- 
signed to sustain. More disciples would avail them- 
selves of the liberty of cutting their way to their fancied 
heaven through their own throats were it not for weak- 
ness of faith. (Sec. CXXXVI.) 



PAET II. 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

CXIII. The arguments built upon the perfections of 
God against the truth are perhaps as deceptive as any, 
God, say Universalists, possesses unbounded goodness, 
and of course will seek the greatest good of his creatures ; 
and his infinite wisdom and almighty power can accom- 
plish all his goodness dictates : as endless punishment 
cannot be for the good of his creatures, the doctrine is 
false. Xow this specious argument, so often employed, 
lies with all its weight against matter of fact, namely, 
the present sufferings of the human race. It avails 
nothing to say that their present sufferings shall result in 
their good ; for, reasoning from the attributes of God, as 
Universalists are wont to do, we might ask. Is a being 
possessed of infinite wisdom, power, and goodness, under 
the necessity of first making the human race suffer six 
thousand years before he can make them perfectly 
happy? All will see that, if our knowledge of God's 
attributes is to be the basis of doctrine, then no human 
suffering could ever have existed; for none can doubt- 
but Omnipotence could have created men, at first, as 
happy as any ever will be, and have kept them so. But 
matter of fact teaches us that he has not done it ; there- 
fore all such reasoning must be false. Suppose a being, 
adopting the Universalist mode of argument, to have 
existed prior to the creation of man. It is announced to 
him that God is about to create a race of beings called 
men, and that they are to exist in a sinful, suffering state 
for six thousand years, or more, and then he is to make 



346 Univeksalism not of the Bible. [Part II, 



them all holy and happy ; that some of the race shall 
live and endure this thirty, fifty, one hundred, and some 
even nine hundred and sixty-nine years, (Gen. v, 27 ;) 
that they shall suffer from wars, slavery, famine, poverty, 
disease, intemperance, partialism, and innumerable other 
evils ; that even tender infants, before they know right 
from wrong, shall often suffer the most extreme agonies 
for weeks and months together ; but that this suffering 
is all disciplinary, and necessary for the ultimate happi- 
ness of the race. How would such a being meet this ? 
He would reply, I cannot believe a doctrine which re- 
flects so ingloriously upon my heavenly Father, and is 
so at w^ar with his attributes ; for, 

1. His power and wisdom are infinite, therefore he can 
do his pleasure, and none can hinder. 

2. His goodness is unbounded, which of course will 
admit of no unnecessary suffering on the part of his 
creatures, but will make him delight in their perfect and 
undisturbed happiness. 

3. Having such power and wisdom, such suffering is 
unnecessary, for he can create and keep them just as 
happy as he can possibly make them after they have suf- 
fered six thousand years; therefore such a suffering race 
will never exist. 

Such reasoning, as plausible as it may appear, would 
have been false, for such a suffering race is now in exist- 
ence ; and as it is compatible with the attributes of God 
for the human race to suffer six thousand years without 
seeing a reason why, it may be so for some of them to 
suffer endlessly. We might extend our remarks and il- 
lustrations had we space, but enough has been said to 
give the reader a clue to the sophistries of these men 
upon this subject. (Sec. CIII.) 

Their appeals to human sympathy are equally decep- 
tive and fallacious. Say they, " You are possessed of 
more goodness than your God, for you would not pun- 



Sec. 113.] Ukivjsbsaijsm not of the Bible. 347 

# ish one of your children endlessly/' To such it is re- 
plied, You are possessed of more goodness than your 
God, for when your child is suffering by disease or other- 
wise, had you the ability you would relieve it in a 
moment. God has such ability, but he does not relieve 
it ; the innocent child suffers on. So you see how much 
better you are than your God. Again : you cast about 
you, and wituess the untold agonies of the human race, 
suffering from various causes ; and while you contem- 
plate these, your heart is moved with compassion, and 
had you the ability you would put a stop to these evils 
at once and forever, and spread peace, joy, and perma- 
nent happiness throughout the universe. God possesses 
such ability, yet the suffering continues. So vou see how 
much better you are than your God. By this mode of 
a gument many are deceived; making human sympathy 
-a rule by which to judge of God's moral government is 
most preposterous; and for finite man to make his views 
of the divine perfections, which he can never fully un- 
derstand, the basis of doctrines, is always to plunge him- 
self into the vortex of error. Infinity can never be fully 
comprehended by a finite mind ; and as, in reasoning 
upon other subjects, we cannot arrive at just conclusions 
unless we understand the premises, so with this. God 
has revealed to us that he is almighty, holy, wise, just, 
and good, but we can never so understand these infinite 
perfections as to be able to learn from them, aside from 
what the Scriptures reveal, what is and what is not con- 
sistent with them. If Universalis!!! is taught in the 
Bible, it is true, whether we can see a reason in the 
divine attributes for it or not; and so with endless pun- 
ishment. But for finite and depraved man to rise up, 
and tell us from the divine attributes what must and 
what must not take place, is as unseemly as it would be 
for a child of three years to be found dictatins: and ex- 
pounding the laws of an empire. 



348 Universalis*! not of the Bible. [Part IX, 

The same deceptive course is pursued concerning the 
will of God. (See Sec. LXXXIV.) 

CXIV. " We call upon the writers who adduce these 
passages in support of the doctrine of endless misery 
to bring forward some text like this : The wicked shall 
perish in the immortal state ; into smoke shall they con- 
sume away in the immortal state; the transgressors 
shall be destroyed beyond the grave; the end of the 
wicked shall be cut off in eternity." — Guide, p. 6 7. 

This, by its author, is adopted as a rule by which to 
set aside Scriptures brought against his doctrine, and we 
find him applying it as follows: " Prov. xiv, 32, 'The 
wicked is driven away in his wickedness ; but the right- 
eous hath hope in his death.' In order to express the 
common doctrine which is inferred from this passage, it 
should read, c The wicked is driven into endless punish- 
ment in the future world;' but as nothing of that kind 
is said, so we presume nothing like it is meant." On 
Eccles. xii, 14, he asks, "Is it said, 6 God shall bring 
every work into judgment ' in the future immortal ex- 
istence ? ISFo such statement is made." Again, Psa. 
xlix, 14, 15, "Is there one word intimated in regard to 
punishment after the resurrection of the dead? Not a 
syllable." With such a rule, who can wonder that Mr. 
Whittemore is always victorious in controversy ! 

Suppose we make the same demand, and call upon 
Universalists to produce texts like these : All men shall 
be as the angels of God in the immortal state ; all men 
shall be holy and happy beyond the grave ; all men 
shall be saved in eternity; and then assert that, because 
none of these expressions are appended to any texts 
they bring to support their doctrine, that nothing like 
them is meant ? In this way not only is future punish- 
ment destroyed, but future bliss; and thus the world is 
left without any hope of a future life. 



SeC. 114.] UsTTEKSALISM IsOT OF THE BlBLE. 349 



In Xo. 1,005 of the " Trumpet " is the following scrap, 
thrown in by the editor : 

"Last week's 6 Recorder 5 has an article entitled 'Un- 
pardonable Sin.' We will give the editor of the 6 Re- 
corder ^ fifty dollars if he will find such an expression 
in the Scriptures." 

Doubtless this passed for a very weighty argument 
with many of the readers of that print. We are told, 
too, in their writings, that the phrase " eternal death" 
is not found in the Bible ; and from the frequency of 
this statement by some of their divines, we conclude 
they deem it* of great importance in sustaining their 
system. We admit that the exact phrase " eternal 
deaih " is not in the Bible, but the phrases " eternal 
damnation" 64 everlasting destruction" and "everlasting 
punishment" are in the Bible; and we conclude that 
eternal death is antithetically expressed in Rom. vi, 23 ; 
also, that the doctrine expressed by this phrase is 
clearly taught in other parts of the Scriptures. The 
argument of the Universaiists is this : the expressions 
" unpardonable sin " and u eternal death " are not in the 
Bible ; therefore the doctrines they are used to express 
are not in the Bible. Is this sound ? Let us see, by 
applying this rule in argument to some of the expres- 
ions in use by Universaiists, how it works. In 
their writings we find the following: "future state" 
" immortal state" " immortal existence" u cdlwillbe holy 
and happy" "Deity" etc. All will see that we could 
very safely offer "fifty dollars " to any one who will 
find either of these expressions in the Bible. The argu- 
ment stands thus, then: these expressions are not in the 
Bible ; therefore the doctrines they are used to express 
are not in the Bible. Thus, by the magic wand of its 
own advocates, is Universalism swept by the board, 
and the existence of God too. All discerning men will 
g^6 that there is no argument in this ; but the advo- 



350 



UxiVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part II, 



cates r jf this dogma use it because they know that un- 
thinking men may be duped by it. 

But supposing the phrase " eternal death n was found 
forty times in the Bible, would Uniyersalists allow it a 
future-state reference ? Not they. The same sophistry 
which deprives the phrase ' ; eternal life 5 ' of its future- 
state reference could, just as easily, be emp'oyed on 
the phrase "eternal death." It discovers great wicked- 
ness to harp so much upon the absence of the phrase 
" eternal death " to prove their doctrine, denying, as 
they do, the future-state reference of the phrase which 
is its counterpart. (Sec. LXVIL) 

We have been told for the hundredth time that St. 
Paul never used the word hell in his preaching. The 
following is a specimen : 

" It is a singular fact that St. Paul, from all that ap- 
pears in the whole history of his thirty years'' preach- 
ing, did not once use the term hell to a solitary indi- 
vidual, saint or sinner. To be sure, he made use of cer- 
tain other expressions, which are usually considered, in 
our day, as relating to endless punishment ; but if hell, 
as commonly understood, is the place of punishment, it 
is a singular and wonderful fact that Paul the apostle, 
and the chiefest of all the apostles, never once uttered 
it to an individual ! Query. What would be thought 
of a minister in our day who should preach thirty years 
and never once threaten his impenitent hearers with 
the punishment of hell? Answer me that. What 
would be thought of him ? " — U. against P., p. 265. 

Here the reader has one of Mr. Fernald's facts, with 
all its comely proportions. This is a very fair speci- 
men of the honesty and logic of Universalist divines. 
Notice the crafty attempt to make the impression on 
the minds of the unthinking, that we have a history of 
all Paul's preaching for thirty years, whereas we have 
not so much as he probably preached on one occasion, 



Sec. 114.] Universalis*! not of the Bible. 



351 



when he continued his discourse till midnight. We are 
aware of the difference that exists between "the whole 
history," and the history of the whole of a thing. But 
did this man mean that this distinction should be 
noticed ? Why does he ask, " What would be thought 
of a minister in our day who should preach thirty years" 
etc. Then mark his italics. All will see the deceptive 
design.* But Paul " did not once use the term hell 
to a solitary individual." This man, however, admits 
that he used " certain other expressions which are usu- 
ally considered, in our day, as relating to endless pun- 
ishment." Yes, and not only in our day have they 
been so considered, but by the brightest ornaments of 
the Christian Church, from the time of the apostles to 
the present. But admitting that we have a history of 
the whole of Paul's thirty years' preaching, are there not 
some other singular and wonderful facts connected with 
it ? The most of those vivid descriptions given by Paul 
in his writings, of judgment and punishment, are by 
Universalists referred to - Jerusalem's destruction ; yet 
in no single instance do we find the expression Jerusa- 
lem, or destruction of Jerusalem, in connection with 
such descriptions. This is true, too, of all the rest of 
the epistles where such descriptions are found. Aside 
from a few short passages in the Gospels, no one would 
ever learn from the New Testament that the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem by the Romans was even so much as 
thought of by primitive Christians. Now we ask, Is it 
not a singular and wonderful fact, that Paul the apos- 
tle, and the chiefest among the apostles, and all the 
rest of the apostles, too, while they were preaching and 
writing about the destruction of Jerusalem so much, 
they never uttered the phrase " destruction of Jerusa- 

* We see the same kind of deception relative to the Saviour's three 
years' ministry in Mr. Thayer's work on "Endless Punishment," 
p. 117. 



352 



U^aYERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part II, 



lem 55 to a single individual ? Now if Paul could teach 
the punishment of the Jews at Jerusalem without nam- 
ing the place, then he could teach the punishment of 
sinners in hell without naming the place. Query. 
What w r ould be thought of a Universalist minister in 
our day who should preach thirty years and never once 
use the phrase " destruction of Jerusalem ? " Answer 
me that. What would be thought of him? 

The following is from Mr. S. R. Smith : 

u The doctrine of the future punishment of the wick- 
ed, that is, after death, is in no instance unequivocally 
asserted in the Bible. It is merely inferred from a few 
passages, which certainly admit of a different construc- 
tion. Surely, if true, it is too important to rest merely 
upon conjecture," — Scrip. Doc, p. 29. 

This is from a Sunday-school book, and by such a 
method do they deceive the young. The argument 
stands thus: The exact phraseology that S. R. Smith 
here employs respecting future punishment is not in 
the Bible; therefore, there is no future punishment 
taught in the Bible ! Let the Universalist, if he can, 
place his finger upon the passage in the Bible where it 
says, " all men shall be saved after death." This he 
cannot do. We assert, then, that ''the doctiine of the 
final salvation of all men, that is, after death, is in no 
instance unequivocally asserted in the Bible. It is 
merely inferred from a few passages, which certainly 
admit of a different construction. Surely, if true, it is 
too important to rest merely upon conjecture." Uni- 
versalism, then, is a fable. 

All who write and speak of doctrines are in the 
habit of using language, the exact form of which is not 
found in the Bible; and none are more in the habit of 
this than the Universalist s themselves. But of us they 
demand the precise phraseology of the Bible, or else, 
forsooth, the doctrine is false ! One instance more. Mr. 



Sec. 115.] Universalis^ not of the Bible. 



353 



Skinner, speaking of the judgment, says, "Not an in- 
stance can be found, in ail the Scriptures, where it is de- 
clared to be in eternity.'" — U. Ill and Def., p. 229. 
Paul says that the judgment is after death, (Sec. XX ;) 
but then, as the exact expression "in eternity" is not 
appended, there can be no judgment in eternity ! We 
beg leave to inquire where, in all the Bible, is it declared 
tbat Qi salvation is in eternity ? " 

Do not these men see the forceless character of such 
arguments ? It would be a severe reflection upon their 
intellects to say they do not. Why, then, do they use 
them ? Because the depraved and ignorant can be de- 
ceived by them. 

CXV. 4 * Ministers uniformly speak of the wicked as 
having gone to hell, and the virtuous to heaven. Why 
then call them back from their respective places to judg- 
ment. 5 — XI. 111. and Def., p. 23d/ 

Reasons could be given for a judgment were it neces- 
sary. But suppose we cannot tell why God will have 
a general judgment, does that disprove it ? It is not for 
us. as receivers of a revelation, to call in question the 
divine procedure, as there may be a reason in the 
mind of Him whose thoughts are far above our thoughts 
for such an event, even though we cannot see it. It be- 
comes us to inquire, What say the Scriptures ? and not 
be caviling. (Sec. CXXXVII.) The Bible evidently 
teaches that good men enter bliss or death, (Phil, i, 21, 
23,) and that wicked men enter into misery. Luke xvi, 
23. It also teaches a general judgment after death. 
Rom. xiv, 10; Heb. ix, 28, 29. It is the very genius of 
Infidelity to call in question God's revealed truth. Is 
there nothing difficult of solution in Universal ist views ? 
Why does evil exist? Could not the Almighty with 
equal ease have created man with a constitution incapa- 
ble of sin and suffering ? Or could he not, by his 

23 



854 



Univeesalism not of the Bible. [Part II, 



almighty fiat, put an end to these at the present mo- 
ment ? Questions of this character, to any extent, 
might be asked by skeptics. 

The judgment is in this world, say Universalists, and 
takes place immediately. " Xow is the judgment of 
this world," is a text ever at hand to prove that there 
is no future judgment, because all are judged now. 
(Sec. LT.) Christ uttered these words nearly forty 
years before Jerusalem was destroyed. Says Mr. Whit- 
ten) ore, "At the destruction of the Jewish nation there 
was a general judgment among the nations of the 
earth.'' — Guide, p. 187. Xow if the Jews and all others 
then living were judged forty years before Jerusalem 
was destroyed, what call was there for a general judg- 
ment when that event took place? (Sec. CIII.) When 
Universalists shall have harmonized these portions of 
their theology to the satisfaction of the candid, they 
may, with a better grace, call in question what God 
has revealed concerning a general judgment in the 
future world. 

CXVI. In an effort to show that Universalism is not 
a new doctrine, a writer in the " Universalist Com- 
panion" for 1844 says: "But after all that has been 
said about new things, what has self-styled orthodoxy 
itself to boast of in this respect ? To hear its believers 
talk, one would think that the doctrines they profess 
have been in existence thousands of years. But what 
saith history on this subject ? If we except the Greek 
and Roman Churches, all existing denominations are of 
comparative recent origin, having mostly arisen since 
the era of the "Reformation." — P. 35. He then goes on 
with some parade to show when the Lutherans, Episco- 
palians, Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians origi- 
nated as denominations, He commences with the origin 
of doctrines, and then shuffles off on to the origin of 



Sec. 117.] TJkiverSausm xot of the Bible. 



355 



denomi nations ! A false issue in argument may deceive 
the people, but the cause of truth never requires it. 
Christians have never condemned Universaiism because 
the denomination embracing it is a new one. but because 
the doctrines are new, being such as were not taught 
by Christ, his apostles, or the primitive fathers. (Sec. 
CXXXI.) He has reiterated, too, the old historical 
falsehood so common to the order, namely, that Tertui- 
lian was the first who openly asserted the doctrine of 
endless punishment in the Christian Church. (See Sec. 
CXXXII) 

CXVIT. In revising, we at first thought of leaving 
out this section, as the facts named occurred some years 
a £0, but have concluded to retain it for the following* 
reasons, namely: First, it is historical; and second, we 
are satisfied by examination that the same method with 
the Scriptures is in vogue to-day among Universalists 
as then. It is patent in all their leading theological 
books, and furthermore, their doctrine cannot be taught 
without it. This section also gives a fair showing of 
their views and treatment of the BibJe, and an acknowl- 
edgment of the fact by some of their leading men. 
Universalists have boasted much of the spread of their 
doctrine in Germany. This Universaiism of which 
they have said so many good things at length visited 
them in Xew England, producing not a little trouble in 
their camp. This Universaiism, or Rationalism as it is 
called, is so open, and its atheistical character so visible, 
that it was not so well suited to the order in Xew En- 
gland, especially just at a time when its leaders were 
laboring hard to impress the world with the falsehood 
that Universaiism is bona fide Christianity. That this 
has obtained extensively in the body is asserted by Mr. 
G. Severance, a minister in the order. He says, " YTithin 
a few years Rationalism has become very much diffused 



356 



Uniyeesalism not of the Bible. [Part II, 



in American literature. It Las found its way into many of 
our (XTniversaiist) societies. 53 — C. Freeman, July 18, 1851. 

Creeds Universalists could have no patience with, 
and true liberality had its abode with them only. Be- 
lieve or disbelieve what you will, only believe in the 
"main point," namely, that all will ultimately be 
saved, and you are a Universalist. This has been the 
profession. But expediency demanded that a creed be 
manufactured for those among them who had become 
too bold in propagating the good German Universal- 
ism ; so at the " Boston Association," held at Lynn, Nov. 
1847, the following was introduced: 

"Resolved, That this Association express its solemn 
conviction, that in order for one to he regarded as a 
Christian minister, with respect to faith, he must believe 
in the Bible account of the life, teachings, miracles, 
death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ" 

After some maneuvering, fearing lest the resolution 
would not be adopted, its friends succeeded in carrying 
an adjournment to meet in four weeks, in Cambridge- 
port, wiien the resolution was adopted by the Associa- 
tion. Those among the aggrieved by its adoption were 
J. M. Spear, C. Spear, D. H. Plumb, W. M. Fernald, J. W. 
Hanson, J. Prince, B. H. Clarke, and W. G. Cambridge. 
These have published a " Statement of Facts," in which 
they complain of great illiberality. Mr. Plumb says: 
"I stand now just where I stood six years ago, when I 
obtained letters of fellowship and was ordained. No 
questions were asked me then in regard to belief. I be- 
lieved in universal salvation then, and I do now. This 
was regarded as the only real essential of a Universalist. 
The manner in which he was induced to believe it — how 
it would be brought about — what would intervene be- 
tween the present and its final accomplishment, were all 
regarded as questions of secondary importance, and were 
never to my knowledge put." 



Sec. 117.] UxiYERSALisir xot or the Bible. 



357 



In this document they complain that they were 
wronged, inasmuch as they had introduced no new 
principle of interpretation, but had only employed one 
which had always been in the order ; and examples are 
given from leading Universalists. (See one furnished by 
J. W. Hanson, in Sec, XCVIL) 

In all this these men are correct, and, as Universalist 
ministers, they surely had cause of complaint. The 
theory has ever been propagated by Rationalistic prin- 
ciples, from Ballou on the Atonement to the last author. 
Its very life depends upon murdering the Bible. Says 
Mr. Cambridge, in the sheet named, " Universalists have 
harped continually in relation to using the sacred gift 
of reason in the investigation of truth — the teachings of 
the Bible, etc. But how is it now? They do not say 
in so many words that reason is carnal, but their actions 
show that they are driven to the disagreeable necessity 
of eating their own words." 

But what was the design of this resolution ? Mr. 
Prince inquires, "Does it cut off any from the ministry ? 
Some who voted for it say that they regard it only as 
an expression of opinion, not as a measure virtually to 
exclude any one in particular from the fellowship of the 
order, or as an attempt to drive any one away from the 
Universalist ministry. Had they viewed it otherwise, 
they say they should not have voted for it." 

The action amounted to this, then : men who were de- 
clared by the resolution not to be Christian ministers, 
were permitted to remain in good and regular standing 
in the Universalist ministry ! But what was the real 
design of the resolution ? Mr. Prince shall tell. He 
says, C; I express it as my solemn conviction that the 
whole movement, which has resulted (after the mountain 
labor and ' flourish of trumpets' in the announcement) 
in the generation of a £ Resolve, 5 was an endeavor to 
erect a screen between the Universalist denomination 



858 



UxiYEKSALISil NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part II, 



and the other sects, to hide from their eyes the fact, 
which has been daily growing more and more apparent 
to the gaze of the world, that the Universal ist body is 
to a considerable degree tinctured with Rationalistic 
ideas of the Bible, of miracles, and of the subject of in- 
spiration in general. And I have no doubt it was 
thought that a movement of the kind would have a tend- 
ency to overawe the minds of some of the younger 
brethren, who have recently ventured to give free utter- 
ance to their convictions in the pulpit. But, as far as 
the movement is intended to disguise the fact of the ex- 
istence and operating influence of the spirit of Rational- 
ism in the sect, it will signally fail. The screen is too thin, 
it has many loopholes ; and the other sects will either peep 
through or look over it with a half-suppressed titter, if 
indeed they are able to preserve any thing like an ap- 
proach to gravity ! " 

Doubtless Mr. Prince is correct in his view of the sub- 
ject. This " statement of facts " has so raised the screen, 
that without difficulty the outsiders have a fair view of 
the serpents that nestle over in the dark swamp of TTni- 
versalism. They present a view of Universalist minis- 
ters as they are, and not as they are seen in the pulpit. 
As they have raised the screen, let us look again. Mr. 
Fernald, in the same sheet, reports Mr. Ballou, senior, 
as saying to him, " That we could not, with our reason, 
believe in miracles as above the workings of nature ; 
that it was best not to say much about it : that if any 
were so imprudent as to broach it now they would have 
to bear all the brunt of the battle, and those who come 
after would reap all the good. On relating the impres- 
sion I received from this conversation to a talented 
clergyman, he remarked that he agreed with the venera- 
ble gentleman ; that he did not call him weak or fearful 
for not promulgating these views, but on the contrary 
this was a proof of his wisdom ; that he probably had 



SeC. 117.] UXIVEKSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 359 



not seen the time when the world could bear these views, 
and so had not proclaimed them." 

Again Mr. F. says, " One of the most popular clergy- 
men in the denomination, not sixty miles from Boston, 
assured me, in his study last spring, that he did not be- 
lieve that Christ was ever raised bodily from the dead." 
INXr. Fernald contemplated preaching to a society, and 
was about to send word to them by a minister of the 
order as follows : " Please tell the people that I am a 
Rationalist ; that I do not believe in the miracles as 
above nature — many of them I do not believe in at ail- 
not even the bodily resurrection of Christ. s Fernald, 
said he, 1 don't send any such word. Go tell them that 
you are a Christian, and there are not ten men in the 
society that will care what you believe.' Such was the 
advice and remarks of this highly esteemed clergyman. 5 ' 
Mr. F. asserts that those entertaining these views are not 
the obscure and uninfiuential alone, but that they ;, are 
among the first in the order — the most talented, the most 
influential and popular." Here we see the gross infidelity 
and black hypocrisy of Universalism. Much more of the 
same sort might be presented from this revelation of de- 
pravity did our limits admit. 

In the "Trumpet" of August 25, 1855, a disciple 
writes to the editor, and appears to be in a famishing 
condition for Universalism as preached by " Father 
Ballon," and says, "I have heard a young man who is 
in formal fellowship with the Uni versa list denomina- 
tion declare in the pulpit that he did not believe that 
God rested on the seventh day after the creation, as 
related in Genesis, that he did not believe that Christ 
existed at all before he was born in Palestine, or that 
there was any thing miraculous in his birth, more than in 
the birth of any other individual." 

Now in what respect does this young man differ from 
Ballou ? He is a little more imprudent or honest in pr<> 



860 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part H, 



claiming his thoughts from the pulpit; that is all. Sen- 
timents equally intide! are found in Ballou's writings in 
abundance. (Sec. XC VII.) Will he be disfeilowshiped 
for these rank infidel sentiments? More prudent they 
would like to see the young man, but are not such bigots 
as to disfellowship a minister of theirs for so small an 
affair ! * 

The legitimate fruit of the doctrine as held by many 
of the Germans who come to our country is seen in 
their opposition to our Temperance reform, and also to 
the sanctity of the Christian Sabbath, regarding it as a 
day for all kind of sports instead of worship. American 
Universalism is modified somewhat in this respect by the 
moral forces sent out from evangelical Churches with 
which it is surrounded, so that in some localities its ad- 
herents evince more respect for the Sabbath than their 
German brethren do. 

CXVIIL a No instance of persecution can be pointed 
out, in all the history of the Church, which can be justly 
attributed to those who believe that God will at last 
have mercy upon all." — Guide, p. 261. 

If Mr. Whittemore meant to say that no individual of 
his faith has ever persecuted, his statement is false. In- 
stances not a few could be given where Universalists 
have treated members of their own families most brutal- 

* Since this was written they have grown more bigoted, according to 
their former ideas of bigotry, we conclude, from the action taken by the 
State Convention in the case of Mr. Connor, who was colleague with 
Dr. Minor, of Boston, four years ago. Extending the mode of in- 
terpretation, which has ever been rife in the order, to the whole in- 
stead of a part of the Scriptures, he developed into a Rationalist, 
denying the inspiration of the Bible. He caused Dr. Minor and 
others so much trouble, it seems, that the Convention were under the 
necessity of bringing a creed to bear upon him, shutting him off from 
the connection. 



Sec. 118.] Universalism is t ot of the Bible. 361 



ly for embracing religion among other sects. If he 
meant to say that Universalists as a body have never 
persecuted, it is no more than can be said of several 
other sects, who believe in endless punishment. The 
Methodists, and some of the Baptist sects, have never 
persecuted. But does this prove that they never would 
if hitched on to the corrupting car of State ? By no 
means. And is a mere belief in Universalism so potent 
to remove depravity, that no persecution, might be ex- 
pected from its votaries did circumstances favor it ? 
Their verbal persecution, the low slang and bitterness 
with which they have followed Christians, clearly in- 
dicate to what they would resort, had they the power, 
to destroy " Partialism." It will be time enough for 
Universalism to boast of its pacific character when it 
shall have once had the rod of power in its own hands 
without using it. 

We are often cited to the bloody deeds of Papal 
Rome and the persecutions under the Episcopalians and 
Puritans. These, it is said, were perpetrated by believers 
in endless punishment, and not by Universalists ; and the 
conclusion is, that Universalism must be the child of 
heaven. But cannot Atheism prove itself in a very good 
condition in the same way ? The sects named as persecut- 
ing were Christians, and not Atheists ; therefore Atheism 
must be the true theory ! 1ST ot a few of those who have 
instigated persecutions no more believed in endless pun- 
ishment than Mr. W. does ; but in consequence of the un- 
holy connection of Church and State, as found in some 
parts of Christendom, they have persecuted those who dif- 
fered from the religion of the State, for worldly purposes, 
regardless of their own religious views concerning the 
future condition of man. How does it happen that we, 
as a nation, have a constitution protecting us in our re- 
ligious rights ? Are we indebted to Universalism for 
this ? Indeed, Mr. W.'s idolized form of Universalism 



362 Universalism not of the Bible. [Part IT, 



is but about fifty-five years old, (Sec. OXXXII,) and 
it is well known that when the people of the United 
States adopted the Constitution there were but few to 
be found calling themselves Restorationists, and that all, 
or nearly so, of the different sects were receivers of the 
doctrine of eternal punishment. Yet from such a peo- 
ple is transmitted to us a constitution securing religious 
liberty to all, Universalists not excepted. Away, then, 
w T ith such a miserable sophism as stands at the head of 
this section !• 

CXIX. When we speak of the anger, hatred, and venge- 
ance of God, (Psa, vii, 11 ; xi, 5 ; Rom. xii, 19,) we are 
informed that we are not at liberty to attribute human 
passions to him. We admit that we are not to attribute 
anger and hate to God in the same sense that man is 
excited by these passions. But .in revealing himself to 
us God has sometimes used a figure called anthropopa- 
thy, by w T hich he attributes human passions to himself, 
as being the most appropriate ideas of his ways to us 
of which we can have any conception, especially when 
disconnected with every thing weak and sinful found 
with these passions in man. If we do not impute to 
him something like human passions, and thus fellow 
his own example, we give up revealed truth for philo- 
sophical ignorance. Universalists seem not to be aware 
that compassion, mercy, pity, desire, and love are all 
human passions, which they readily attribute to God, 
and that we may err as greatly in our views of these 
as in our views of the other class. They hesitate not 
to infer from the promptings of these passions in man 
how they must be exercised in God toward his creat- 
ures, and thus they make them the same in God that 
they are in man. When we imitate God by speaking 
of his indignation, fury, wrath, anger, and vengeance, 
w T e are charged w T ith making Go 1 a vindictive t rant. 



Sec. 120.] Universalis^ not of the Bible. 



863 



Might we not with equal propriety charge our oppo- 
nents with representing God as a weak old man in his 
dotage, or as some crack-brained swain, ready to melt 
away with love ? What we ask of Universalists is, 
that they desist from this mode of reasoning upon the 
sterner passions which God has attributed to himself, or 
else that they show their consistency by extending the 
same mode of reasoning to the milder ones. If they do 
this their false appeals to human sympathy and parental 
affection will become powerless. God's anger, love, 
and immutable justice all harmonize. (See Sections 
XV and XXXVII.) 

CXX. In the propagation of their doctrine, Univer- 
salists make the largest professions of liberality and love 
for the truth. They are willing to " hear both sides 
and Christians are often asked why they are unwilling 
to hear Universalists preach, to read their books, and 
listen to their sermons? In answer we say: 

1. Christians are to "have no fellowship with the 
unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." 
Eph. v, 11. 

2. Another reason why they are unwilling that men 
should hear Universalists, and read their books, is, not 
because they fear the truth, but because they fear their 
sophistries and perversions. They are so for the same 
reasons that they are unwilling their friends should 
hear avowed Infidels lecture, and read their works. 
They know that such is the opposition of unrenewed 
minds to God's truth, and their inclination to error, 
that it is no uncommon thing for men to be exceedingly 
skeptical respecting the plainest Scripture truths, yet, at 
the same time, manifest an astonishing credulity in re- 
ceiving almost any absurdity which is offered in oppo- 
sition to them. This is true of Infidels generally, and 
it is strikingly true of modern Universalists. 



364 



Univeesausm not of the Bible. [Part II. 



One cunningly-devised falsehood in favor of inclina- 
tion, and to palliate sin, will, upon a certain class of 
minds, have more weight than ten honest and solid 
arguments rebuking sin and craning men up to their 
duty to their God. Universalis m is a powerful appeal 
in favor of depravity, and against God's penalties. A 
popular form of it virtually says to irreligious men, 
"Just what you desire the future state to be it shall be, 
irrespective of your conduct here.*' The voting some 
of whom have but a limited knowledge of the Bible, 
are often captivated by arguments as forceless in real- 
ity as a feather, just because the doctrine is in harmony 
with their feelings, and gives them the largest indul- 
gence they could ask in sinful pleasure. 

CXXI. "Preach your own doctrine ami let others 
alone. " is a saying oolite too common among Christians. 
If by it, however, is meant that a minister should not 
evince a pugnacious spirit, that he should not be a 
lover of controversy, that he should not magnify minor 
differences between evangelical Christians, — if this is 
what is meant, we have no objection to it. But if by 
it is meant that a man who is set for the defense of 
the Gospel should only teach his own doctrine, and 
never expose destructive error, we demur. So did not 
the Lord Jesus Christ, so did not Paul. Suppose a 
very alarming disease prevalent in your town, and the 
skillful physician is applying a remedy with great suc- 
cess. While he is doing this a quack comes along with 
large professions of skill and administers a medicine 
which is exactly the reverse of the successful one, and is 
proving fatal to all who take it, and some of your own 
dear friends are by it sent down to the grave. The 
faithful and successful physician analyzes the spurious 
medicine, comes out fearlessly, and shows the public 
its destructive properties, and what it is doing. Would 



Sec. 121.] Universalism not of the Bible. 



365 



you oppose his course, under these circumstances, and 
cry out, " Administer your own medicine, and let other 
medicines alone ? " No, certainly you would not. The 
world is diseased by sin ; the Gospel is the remedy. 
Universalism is a spurious Gospel. By the showing of 
its own advocates, it is opposed, in every essential point, 
to evangelical Christianity. (Sec. CXXXIV.) If an 
error, as we believe it is. it is a most fatal error. Its 
advocates are administering their opiates, and many sin- 
ners are put to sleep in their sins, and may never be 
aroused till they wake up in hell. And has the minister 
done all his duty when he has merely preached his own 
sentiments ? Before Heaven, we think not. 

Perhaps there are but few ways in which they have 
deceived Christians more than by their professed love 
of opposition, for the benefit they derive from it. 
That they would be pleased with opponents unacquaint- 
ed with their theory in its modern shape, (Sec. 
CXXIV,) and who have not the ability to expose their 
serpentine windings, we doubt not. But however much 
they may bluster at the time, they know full well that 
an able exposure of their system, and the dishonest 
means by which it is supported, done in a right spirit, 
is always an injury to their cause.* Hear what A. C. 
Thomas says upon this subject : 

" I do not coincide in opinion with those who declare 
that opposition tends to the advancement of Universal- 
ism. On the contrary, I am satisfied that, had it not 
been for opposition, Universalism wguid be, at this day, 

*The same argument which forbids an effort against the system, 
because of the spasmodic zeal it awakens, lies with all its strength 
against revivals; for nothing renders Universalists more desperate 
than the outpouring of God's spirit among the people. But shall we 
not labor for, and welcome revivals, lest they should start up and do 
something out of the ordinary course ? Let the people have light, 
eitker from the pulpit or the press, or both. 



366 UXITERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Pail IT ? 



the predominant religious profession in the United 
States." — Trumpet, ]STo. 1,056. 

This is from one of the most pugnacious among them, 
and one who is well acquainted with the effects of oppo- 
sition upon the order. 

In exposing Universalism, wisdom is necessary as 
well as in the discharge of every other ministerial duty. 
When there are but few of this order in a place, and 
they have no regular preaching, it might be unwise to 
give them so much importance as a formal course of 
lectures would seem to. But where there is an organi- 
zation, and a minister leading souls to destruction, we 
do not believe it is wisdom or duty for a Christian min- 
ister to look calmly on and do nothing. After suitable 
preparation, let him call the attention of the people to a 
course of lectures, and fearlessly, in the spirit of Christ, 
expose the infidel character of the system, and all the 
dishonorable methods by which it is supported ; and 
also its destructive influence upon the cause of true 
piety. 

Or if there is wanting that kind of ability and taste, 
of which many able ministers are destitute, for an ex- 
posure of this character from the pulpit, let them keep 
their people informed by the circulation of suitable books 
and tracts upon the subject. The Universalist papers 
are filled with doctrinal matter, and they are, with an 
industry worthy of a better cause, pushing their doctrinal 
books and tracts into almost every place. (Sec. CXL.) 
The people must have light, and especially the Church. 
In the absence of this, we shall occasionally find a mor- 
bid sympathy springing up in some minds in favor of 
this dogma, or they may be captivated by it through 
oar neglect. Let Christian ministers do their duty in 
this respect, and there need not be any fear of the result. 
Every minister will of course choose his own method 
of doing this work, but let it by all means be done. 



Sec. 121.] Universalis^: not of the Bible. 



367 



Wavei^ing minds will be established in the truth, and 
Christians will clearly see the anti-Christian character 
of Universaiism. 

Corroborative of Mr. Thomas's view is the decline of 
Universaiism in Maine. There is no State in the Union 
where there has been so much decided and open opposi- 
tion to this error, by lectures, discussions, and publica- 
tions, as in this State. What has been the result? 

The following description of the cause in Maine was 
given nineteen years ago by the Corresponding Secre- 
tary of the Maine Convention of Uni verbalists. He 
said : 

"Many societies are without preaching where were 
apparently promising congregations. Indeed, there is 
no part of the State where we may not meet with meet- 
ing-houses dedicated to the preaching of doctrines of the 
Reconciliation, which now stand unoccupied, seeming to 
say to us in saddened tones, c Is it nothing to you, all 
ye that pass by? ' " — Banner, July 16, 1854. 

Is the cause more prosperous now ? In a few locali- 
ties there is perhaps so Die show of prosperity gro wing- 
mainly out of the wealth connected with it in those 
places, but facts indicate its great decline as a whole. 
In their registers before us, furnished by themselves, 
we find the following statistics. In 1844 there were 
seventy-seven preachers in the State ; in 1872 there were 
thirty-five ; so that in twenty-eight years there was not 
only no gain in the ministry, but a decrease of forty-two 
preachers ! Let us look again. In 1854 there were one 
hundred and thirty -five societies, and one hundred and 
eleven church edifices; in 1872 there are only seventy- 
four societies, and sixty-four church edifices ; being a 
decrease of sixty-one societies, and forty-seven church 
edifices in eighteen years! In 1830 Mr. Whittemore 
first published his "Modern History of Universaiism." 
Speaking of Maine, he says that " there are about thirty 



368 



UnTIVERSALISM KOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part II, 



Universalis! clergymen in this State," We have shown 
that there are now (1872) but thirty-live, so that in 
forty-two years there has been a gain of 'five in the min- 
istry in the State of Maine ! Were there such marks of 
decay in any evangelical body of Christians, would not 
TJniversalists have a shout over it ? The truth is, that 
while Universalism is gratifying to depraved inclinations, 
lc fails to satisfy the great wants of humanity. 

CXXII. Universalists bring our Lord's conversation 
w T ith the Sadducees (Matt, xxii, 23 ; Mark xii, 25 ; 
Luke xx, 34-36) in proof of the salvation of all in the 
future state. We admit that the immortal resurrection 
is here revealed, but deny that the salvation of all is 
here taught. (See Sec. XC, where Universaiist assump- 
tions are exposed.) To illustrate their work upon nu- 
merous other passages, we will just show the reader how 
a twislical Universaiist could deprive this of its future- 
state reference if he found it for his interest to do so. 
In doing this we have only to apply the same mode of 
argument and definition of terms to this passage that 
Universaiist divines do to others where the same expres- 
sions are found. 

1. " This world" and " that world" Luke xx, 34, 35. 
By " this world " is meant this age, that is, the Jewish 
age ; and by " that world " is meant that age, that is, 
the Christian age, after the destruction of Jerusalem. — 
Guide to Z7., p. 100. (See also Sec. IV.) 

2. "Resurrection" (anastasis.) This is the same 
word which occurs in John v, 29, and Luke xiv, 14. 
" It does not necessarily signify restoration to life after 
natural death. 5 ' — Notes on Par., p. 165. As the resur- 
rection of the just took place when Jerusalem was de- 
stroyed by the Romans, (Sec. LIV,) and as all that were 
a in the graves" were raised at the same time, some to 
damnation and others to life, (John v, 29 ; Sec. LXXX,) 



Sec. 122.] Universalis*! not of the Bible. 



369 



and as the same word occurs in the conversation with 
the Sadducees, it roust refer to the same event. 

3. " From the dead" This refers to Jews and Chris- 
tians at the Jerusalem calamity, for they must have been 
in some sense dead or they could not have come forth 
from their graves at that event, (Sec. LXXX.) It is 
clear, then, that no reference is made to the future state 
of man. 

4. " Neither can they die any more" Our ablest 
divines, such as Mr. Whittemore and J. B. Dods, have 
shown most conclusively ("Guide," pp. 164, 223) that 
John viii, 21, and Rev. xxi, 8, have particular reference 
to the national death of the Jews when Jerusalem was 
destroyed. The true sense is this: The Jews having 
died a national death, can die no more as a nation. All 
must see that the future state is not intended. 

5. " They are equal unto the angels" Our greatest 
men have made it as clear as a sunbeam that the " mighty 
angels," (2 Thess. i, 7,) " and all the holy angels," (Matt, 
xxv, 31 ; Sec. XLI,) mean the polluted heathen, or the 
Roman armies. "Notes on Par.," p. 103. Surely it 
cannot be necessary to go into the future world to be- 
come equal to such angels ! 

6. " They are as the angels of God in heaven" Matt, 
xxii, 30. Does the word heaven carry it into the future 
state? By no means, for another of our great men 
says : " It is believed that there is no one place in which 
the word is used in the Bible where it obviously means 
life, or happiness, or the place of these after death." 
(Sec. LIII.) This, then, makes nothing against our 
position, 

7. " Neither marry or are given in marriage" As 
we have shown beyond dispute that this resurrection 
took place when Jerusalem was destroyed at the end ot 
the Jewish age, all must see that it must have been im- 
possible to have entered into the conjugal relation in 

24 



370 



Universalis]}! not of the Bible. [Part II, 



such a season of consternation. This saying was liter- 
ally fulfilled at that time. 

8. ''And are children of God, being children of the 
resurrection " We have shown again and again that all 
men are now the children of God; hence, the Saviour 
never meant to say that the immortal resurrection would 
make them children. Dr. Campbell has shown, that 
agreeably to the original import of the word anastasis t 
(resurrection,) "rising from a seat is properly termed 
anastasis ; so is awakening out of sleep, or promotion 
from an inferior condition." — Notes on Par., p. 161. 
Since, then, there are so many resurrections in this 
world, we are not obliged to confine this expression to 
Jerusalem's destruction ; and as all are the children of 
God here, it is not referable to the immortal resurrection. 
The true sense, as here employed, is obviously this : 
To denote the process by which men are raised from 
non-existence to manhood, and thus they are children of 
God, being children of the resurrection. Do we not 
often inquire where such and such a man was raised ? 
Another and sufficient reason why this passage has no 
reference whatever to the future state is, it will not 
stand the test of Mr. Whittemore's infallible rule. 
(Sec. CXIV.) Let us apply it. Does it say that all 
men shall be as the augels of God in the immortal 
state ? Does it say that all men shall be holy and happy 
in eternity ? Does it say that this resurrection is after 
death? " As nothing of the kind is said, we presume 
nothing like it is meant." 

Here we have that which is as truthful and conclusive 
as most Universalist expositions. With their license we 
can deprive all their proof-texts of their future-state ref- 
erence, and tumble the most of them into Jerusalem. 
Apply their interpretations to the expressions " resurrec- 
tion" " die" " death" " Christ's at his coming" " the 
end" and " kingdom of God" which occur in 1 Cor. xv, 



SeC. 123.] UNIVERSALIS^ NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



371 



and that can with equal ease be deprived of its future 
reference, and thrown into the destruction of J erusalem. 
Can that be the truth of heaven which relies for its sup- 
port upon such a method with the Bible ? 

CXXIII. It has been asserted that evangelical Chris- 
tians hold that a belief in endless punishment constitutes 
a Christian. This is false. They constantly assert the 
possibility of holding the truth in unrighteousness. 
What we contend for is this, that the doctrine is taught 
in the Bible ; that it is a fundamental one in the Chris- 
tian scheme; that it is one of those weighty motives 
which God designs should be brought to bear upon sin- 
ners to arouse them to seek for that work of grace with- 
out which they cannot be Christians, believe what they 
will. When the doctrine of endless punishment is given 
up, 'other important doctrines are usually abandoned, 
and all the motives for a prayerful, godly life soon go by 
the board. The usual result of discarding this doctrine 
is, other gross errors and irreligion. 

u The breach, though small at first, soon opening wide, 
In rushes folly with a full-moon tide ; 
Then welcome errors, of whatever size, 
To justify it by a thousand lies." 

These words of Cowper find an illustration in the 
Universalism of America. The same disposition which 
prompts a man to disbelieve eternal punishment will 
prompt him to a disbelief of every other Christian doc- 
trine which his reason cannot fully compass, or which is 
not in accordance with his feelings. These are the 
reasons why we contend for the doctrine, and not that 
simply believing it constitutes a Christian. Depravity 
is the same, whether found in connection with orthodox 
or heterodox views. The question is, which is calcula- 
ted to bring sinners to Christ for a removal of that de- 



872 



IJXTVESSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part II, 



pravity, that doctrine which says that God's favor cannot 
be gained or lost, (Sec. CYII,) that heaven is for all and 
hell for none in the future, or that which threatens sor- 
row here and a positive evil in the world to come, in 
case of continuing to disobey the Gospel ? We assert 
that the latter is the reformatory doctrine, because- it is 
taught in the Bible, and the salvation of sinners by the 
labors of its advocates illustrate it. Ingenious men may 
give an air of plausibility to some points connected with 
the Universalist theory, but they can point to none re- 
formed and made pious as a result of teaching it. Their 
reformed men are generally at a distance, in some other 
town. 

CXXIY. There are many very able ministers who 
well understand the truths of the Bible, and knew that 
Universalism is false, who are, nevertheless, somewhat 
ignorant of the crafty methods resorted to for its de- 
fence. The difference between these and Universalist 
teachers is this : The latter exert all their ingenuity to 
destroy the obvious meaning of certain portions of the 
Scriptures; while the business of the former is, to en- 
force the truth as they find it in the Bible, and, under 
God, to make men pious. The objects to be secured by 
the two are very different ; and it is not to be consider- 
ed a disparagement to a good minister of Chirst, if he 
is to some extent unacquainted with the wiles of such 
men. Such uninformed persons, however, should be 
cautious how they engage in controversy with men whose 
sole business is to shuffle the word of God, as truth 
might suffer by their inability to defend it, or to expose 
the sophistries arrayed against it. One part of their 
craft is, to represent an opponent as a giant in the ranks 
of the opposition ; and if he is a D.D., all the better, if 
he is only ignorant of their tactics, or has not the power 
timely to command his own resources. If such discus- 



Sec. 125.] Universalism not of the Bible, 373 



sions are ever necessary, none should join issue, but 
such as have studied the last edition of Universalism, 
so that they can say with Paul, "We are not ignorant 
of his (their) devices." See Sec. CXXII. 

CXXV. A while since a mighty effort was put forth 
to make the world believe that John Wesley was a Uni- 
versalist. A story has been told in which it is slated 
that he said he " fully believed Universalism but had 
not made known the fact to the world, thinking the time 
was not yet ripe for the promulgation of the sentiment." 
A writer in the " Newark Eagle," who signed himself 
"Verity," said, "He (Mr. Wesley) did not answer a 
work written by Sir George Stonehouse. He and others 
had promised to do it. But he excused himself by say- 
ing it would occupy so much of his time that he could 
not acquit his conscience before God. That this is a 
mere subterfuge is self-evident." 

So says Mr. " Verity." The first story fixes the charge 
of hypocrisy upon Wesley, and the second of lying. 
Whittemore, in his history, names Wesley in connection 
with Stonehouse, but not as a Universalist then or at any 
subsequent period. But, on the contrary, he represents 
him as saying to Stonehouse, "Better you had died, 
George, before you had written that book." P. 237. 

Taking into the account Wesley's profession and labors 
till the day of his death, the whole effort amounts to 
this : John Wesley was a good Universalist, a base 
hypocrite, and a confounded liar ! A brilliant trinity 
of attributes, well harmonized, created by the advocates 
of Universalism for the benefit of the craft ; but vain is 
the attempt to tack them on to John Wesley. The 
world knows too much of him for that. John Wesley 
a Universalist ! 

It is a very common thing for the leaders in the or- 
der to assert that their doctrine prevails extensively in 



374 UXIYERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part II, 



other sects. Mr. Boyden, in a sermon before the IT. S. 
Convention, says, " I am fully persuaded if the secrets 
of all hearts were laid open, we should find thousands 
who are supposed to be men in orthodoxy, so called, 
but really are babies in Universalism." — Banner, Nov. 
2, 1844. 

That is, many who profess to be strongly orthodox, 
are in reality Universalis ts. 

A writer in the Universalist Companion for 1852, 
says, " Even among orthodox sects, many members, and 
not a few clergymen, secretly hold our views." 

Brown, in his history of Universalism, p. 337, gives the 
following: " A Calvinistic clergyman declared, C I am a 
believer in Universalism ; I do believe all will be saved ; 
but it will not do to preach it.' Why, sir ? C I cannot 
get supported handsomely and comfortably if I was 
publicly to avow this doctrine.' " 

Mr. Brown will have it that there are many more Uni- 
versalists of this class in the ministry of Christian 
Churches. Mr. Whittemore, in his Modern History of 
Universalism, furnishes us quite a list of these concealed 
Universalists. Among them he names (p. 383) J. Hunt- 
ington, D.D., of Coventry, Conn., who, as he states, 
wrote a book in the prime of his life, called " Calvinism 
Improved," teaching Universalism. The manuscript he 
kept by him during his life, and made provision in his 
will for its publication after his death. " Brown's Hist, 
of Univ.," p. 339. Here, then, is a Universalist, with a 
manuscript by him for years, containing his real senti- 
ments, and yet all the while sustaining the relation of 
pastor to a Congregationalist church, and receiving his 
salary from those who think him a believer and teacher 
of orthodox views. In this transaction we have a clear 
evidence of his belief in Universalism, and also an illus- 
tration of its blighting, withering influence upon the 
moral feelings of its recipients. Then look at the case 



Sec. 125.] UXIYERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



375 



just presented from Brown's History, of a man who was 
a Universalist, but preached among the Calvinists to get 
a comfortable support ! And we are informed that there 
are many such Universalists in other sects. What gross 
hypocrisy! 

Could an enemy have given Universalism a worse 
character than is here given it by its friends ? And shall 
we be charged with slander if we say the doctrine is 
demoralizing. O, Universalism ! " Out of thine own 
mouth will I judge thee." In view of the hypocrisy of 
Universalists upon this subject, a thought occurs, namely : 
Xo believer in a future judgment and endless punish- 
ment will ever be found professing to be a Universal- 
ist all his days, or publishing anonymous books advo- 
cating the doctrine. With such a belief he would feel 
that such wicked reservation and deception would meet 
him in the judgment, and send his soul to an endless 
hell. Such deception upon such a subject, in connection 
with such a belief, cannot possibly exist. Reader, which, 
think you, is the truth of God — that which admits of such 
deception upon this subject, or that which absolutely for- 
bids it ? 

One thought more. All are aware that their editors 
have seized with great avidity upon the defections in the 
membership and ministry of Christian Churches, given 
them the highest coloring possible, and published them 
to the world as the fruits of Partialism. But what au- 
thority have they for this, since there are so many of 
their own faith both in the membership and ministry of 
these same Churches? It would be a very natural con- 
clusion that such unprincipled men are just the men to 
commit other deeds of wickedness. 

But why are the eyes of these gentlemen constantly 
turned to the Christian Church for the influence of their 
sentiments ? We beg of them to look for a moment in 
a less honorable direction. Look at the ungodly throng 



376 TJotveksalxsm not of the Bible. [Part II, 



of profane, drunken, gambling, Sabbath -breaking men, 
to be found more or less in every place where Universal- 
ism obtains. Some of these rally for its support, and 
others do nothing but illustrate it. They pay no sup- 
port to its ministers, and seldom listen to its preaching. 
It is enough for them to know that Universalist societies 
are formed, houses built, and that men are abroad calling 
themselves Gospel ministers, teaching that " God is not 
angry with the wicked every day," and the impossibility 
of sinning enough to incur any more punishment than 
shall be for the sinner's good. With such influences 
upon them they are wise enough not to pay money to 
ministers for a bill of indulgence, when they can have 
it gratis. 

We beg of these men to look in this direction and 
witness the influence of their glad tidings to depravity 
upon this class of persons. We think the influence upon 
these will be found to be no better than it is on those in 
the Christian Churches, of which they boast. It may be 
said that such are not Universalists. But they are not 
shaken off in this way. Speak to one of them about his 
duty to God and the danger of his soul, and he will 
draw forth his bill of indulgence with as much confi- 
dence as any poor Papist of Luther's time ever did. He 
is not to be frightened, for God is too good to send his 
creatures to hell. And although in morals he is waxing 
worse and worse, and his physical nature is fast sinking 
by his vices, yet his cherished faith tells him he is only 
ripening for glory ! 

CXXVI. Twisticcd. As this word is used a few times 
in this work, the reader shall have its history. A few 
years since Messrs. Drew and Whittemore fell into a 
quarrel through their respective papers, about the char- 
acter of the notorious J. B. Dods, in which the former 
said of the latter, ("Banner," March 11, 1843): "We 



Sec. 127.] Uniyersalism not of the Bible. 377 



have for a long time, as have also most of our brother 
editors and preachers, been aware that Brother Whitte- 
more, when his mind has become warped by prejudice 
against frien ds, as well as foes, is one of the most unfair 
and twistical writers connected with our cause. But we 
were never called to experience so complete and final 
proof of his disregard of common fairness and fraternal 
courtesy as we find in his last paper. We will just say 
that in only fifty lines of his editorial remarks, embracing 
the close of his first column on his third page, we 
counted and marked no less than thirteen errors, which, 
if intended, are, to speak plainly, falsehoods ; or, if not 
intended, are mistakes of too serious a nature to be 
committed by a man who professes to understand his 
subject." 

Observe : This is not from an enemy to Universalism, 
but from one of the fraternity. Xow this same Mr. 
Wirittemore has written a book called " The Guide to 
Universalism," a book of great popularity in the order, 
in which he professes to explain all the principal texts 
which are thought to oppose Universalism. From our 
knowledge of his writings we think Mr. Drew exceed- 
ingly happy in his effort at coining a word. It is highly 
expressive, especially in its application to Universalist 
divines, and should find a place in the next edition of 
^Yebster , s Dictionary, for that purpose if no other, 

C XX VII. State prisons have been visited, and it is 
said the most of the prisoners, when questioned, were 
found to be believers in endless punishment y and the 
conclusion is that this doctrine is productive of vice, 
while Universalism is highly conducive to virtue. Xow, 
suppose an Atheist were to visit these same prisons, and 
a>k each convict if he believed in the being of God ; 
doubtless the answer in almost every case would be in 
the affirmative. Then, according to the reasoning of 



378 Universalis*! not of the Bible. [Part II, 



Universalists, we should come to the grave conclusion 
that a belief in God is detrimental to morals, while 
Atheism is favorable to virtue ! 

A statement has been extensively circulated, in Uni- 
versal! st prints, that the " Legislature of Ohio selected at 
one time a Methodist chaplain for the prison on account 
of there being more Methodists than any other class 
among the prisoners." It is also stated that the prison- 
ers were consulted in the choice. The evident design is 
to make the impression that the convicts named were 
Methodists when they entered prison. This needs no ref- 
utation. Admitting what is said concerning the choice 
of a chaplain to be true, it is only a mark of the wisdom 
of both the Legislature and the convicts to choose an 
evangelical man instead of a Universalist. What good 
could Universalism do them? What good results from 
it to wicked men out of prison ? Does it reform them ? 
Never. If modern Universalism is true, evangelical 
teaching could do them no essential injury ; but, on the 
other hand, if evangelical sentiments are true, Univer- 
salist teaching might do them an irreparable harm. 
Since, then, Universalism cannot boast of infallibility, 
that system may be false, and ours true ; this being the 
case, no wise man would reject evangelical Christianity, 
and throw himself upon Universalism, for that would 
be running an unnecessary risk. Let evangelical re- 
ligion be embraced with all the heart, and such are safe, 
whether Universalism be true or false. Shrewd prison- 
ers, away from the exciting influence outside the prison 
walls, jfnd having time for reflection, with their Bibles 
before them, may see the worthless character of Univer- 
salism, and hnd the best of reasons for choosing a Chris- 
tian minister to instruct them. As it respects those who 
once professed religion, they were brought to the prison, 
not by evangelical principles, but by acting in opposition 
to them, as they will all testify. The just retributions 



Sec. 127.] Universalis^ not of the Bible. 



379 



of eternity were, at that time, removed from their minds. 
Their crimes are in no way chargeable to evangelical sen- 
timents. But the truth is, many Universalists do find 
their way into the State prisons, though if inquired of 
they might not admit a belief of it,for it is no uncommon 
thing for the most zealous supporters of the dogma to 
reply in the negative, when questioned upon this subject, 
assigning as a reason that they " are not good enough to 
be ZTniversalists" Xow these exalted views of Univer- 
salism, and this extreme modesty, may sometimes obtain 
in the State prison as well as elsewhere. 

But Universalists are often found in the State prison. 
Rev. J. B. Finley, who was some time chaplain of the 
Ohio prison, and perhaps the very man who was chosen 
at the time named, in his " Prison Life," speaking of the 
convicts, says : 

" Among the number was an old man, whom I knew 
many years ago ; and he was then a villain, which he is 
up to this day. He professes to believe in God, in a 
future state, and in heaven ; but affirms that all men as 
soon as they die go directly to the world of everlasting 
happiness. In other words, this old veteran among 
scoundrels is a notorious Universalis!." P. 133. 

" Universalism has been the means of bringing many 
of my miserable charge to their present ruin ; and I feel 
called upon to give it my most severe rebuke, from this 
Golgotha, where the skulls of its slain victims are so 
profusely strewn." P. 27. 

Speaking of hardened Infidels in the prison, he says 
that he found the " most of them had gone to infidelity 
through the convenient door-way of Universalism." P. 31. 

For aught we know, not a few of those in the prisons 
who profess to believe future punishment are Universal- 
ists at heart, for if believers in the doctrine can play the 
hypocrite in Christian Churches, (Sec. CXXY,) they can 
do the same in the State prison, especially if they wish 



380 



UXIYEESALTSM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part II, 



to aid a minister of the order in making a report against 
" Partialism." TTe have no confidence in these prison 
reports from Universalist ministers. They make them 
to serve their errors, and their bill of indulgence gives 
them all the latitude they wish in the work. 

CXXVIII. The great numbers that have been con- 
verted from the Partialist ministry, as it is called, to 
Universalis!!!, is an important item with editors of the 
order, to be kept before the people. But do they ever 
inform their readers of the vast disproportion that exists 
between their ministry and all others put together ? 
No ; for this would destroy all their capital. 

Mr. Grosh, when editor of the " Universalist Regis- 
ter," was in the habit of designating by a particular 
mark the names of those in their ministry who were once 
Partialists. Since the "Register" has been published 
in Boston this practice is discontinued, so we cannot as- 
certain the present number of this class from that source. 
The last we have in possession of Mr. Gro-h's " Registers M 
is for 1864, in which he gives twenty-two as "formerly 
Partialists/' In the absence of data for eight years we 
will add ten to the number, and set the number for pres- 
ent purposes at thirty-two. 

As given in the Universalist statistics for the present 
year (1872) their ministers in the United States number 
six hundred and twenty-six. In running over the statis- 
tics of evangelical Churches in our country for the same 
year, we find that there are in round numbers fifty-eight 
thousand evangelical ministers. Xow the question is, 
if thirty-two have been converted to Universalism out 
of fifty-eight thousand believers in evangelical doctrines, 
how many must be converted from six hundred and 
twenty-six Universalists to evangelical views to make it 
equal ? Figures will show that if one only can be found 
who has left the Universalist ministry, and is now a mitt- 



Bee. 129.] Universalis^ xot of the Bible. 



381 



ister in an evangelical Church, that one is more in 
proportion than the thirty-two, of which Universalists 
boast. Can one be found ? Why, then, do they 
not, like honest men, state the vast disproportion here 
set forth? The reader can easily judge why. See Sec. 
CXXXI1L 

CXXIX. lt Would it be merciful in God to suffer end- 
less punishment ? that is, would it be merciful to the 
sufferer? Can that be just which is not merciful? Do 
not cruelty and injustice go hand in hand?" 

" We freely admit that the infliction of endless pun- 
ishment upon sinners is not a merciful act, but is direct- 
ly opposed to the exercise of mercy. The claims of 
justice and mercy never conflict with each other ; and 
hence, though we admit that endless punishment is not 
merciful, we deny, at the same time, that it is any viola- 
tion of mercy. Justice and mercy are distinct princi- 
ples, and may be exercised conjointly, or one may be 
exercised without any manifestation of the other, and yet 
without violating either. When God chastises his chil- 
dren, as in the case of all corrective and sanctified afflic- 
tions, justice and mercy are both displayed ; justice, be- 
cause the punishment is what we deserve, and mercy, 
because it is sanctified to our good. When God forgives 
sinners without punishment, a^ in the case of the Xine- 
vites, mercy is displayed without any manifestation of 
justice in the case, yet justice is not violated. When God 
cuts off the sinner, as in the case of the old world, the 
Sodomites, and many others which might be mentioned, 
he displays his justice without any manifestation of 
mercy ; yei there is nothing unmerciful in it, since mercy 
claims nothing in these cases, they being no longer sub- 
jects of mercy. 

" The idea that Universalists make so prominent, that 
every act of the divine administration must be an act of 



882 



UjStyersalism not of the Bible. [Part II, 



mercy, to save his government from impeachment, has 
no foundation in the Bible. The Scriptures make a clear 
distinction between mercy and justice, between grace 
and wrath, and between blessings and curses. An act 
of mercy never flows from simple justice, but is an off- 
spring of goodness, while wrath never proceeds from 
mercy, but is insulted justice taking vengeance upon the 
guilty. The Bible does not pretend that mercy and 
justice are equally displayed in the case of every sub- 
ject of the divine government: 'Therefore hath he 
mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will 
he hardeneth,' Rom. ix, 18; 4 For he shall have judg- 
ment without mercy that hath showed no mercy,' James 
ii, 13. 

"These Scriptures, together with many more which 
might be produced, show that every act of the divine 
administration, is not an act of mercy. 

"But it is asked: 'Can that be just which is not 
merciful?' This has been already answered above, but 
we will answer it again by saying, Yes, an act may be 
just without being merciful. We have just quoted a 
text which says certain characters shall have judgment 
without mercy. Xow, judgment without mercy can- 
not be merciful, yet it must be just. There are many 
cases in which an action may be just and not be merciful. 
It may be that justice requires that the murderer shall 
be hanged ; but it is not an act of mercy even to a mur- 
derer to hang him. A rich man may lend money to a 
poor man, and justice may require the poor man to pay 
it again, but mercy does not require it, since the rich 
man is better off without it than he is with it. ' He 
that despised Moses' law died without mercy.' Heb. 
x, 28. Was there not justice without mercy ? But it is 
asked, 'Do not cruelty and injustice go hand 'n hand?' 
Xot necessarily ; an act may be cruel without being un- 
just; or an act may be unjust without being cruel. It 



See. 130. J Universalism not of the Bible. 



383 



would be unjust for a poor man to cheat a rich man out 
of a bushel of corn, but it would not be cruel. On the 
other hand, it might be very cruel for a rich man to take 
a poor man's last bushel of corn to satisfy a just debt, 
but it would not be unjust. 

u In all this, it should be borne in mind, that the in- 
justice of endless punishment is taken for granted, with- 
out any effort to prove it. If it could be proved that 
endless punishment would be unjust, then it might be 
proved that it would be unmerciful ; or if it could be 
proved that it would be unmerciful, that is, contrary to 
the claims of mercy, then it might be proved that, under 
the circumstances of the Gospel, it would be unjust; 
but until one of these points is proved, independently 
of the other, no advance is made in the argument. It 
amounts to this: Endless punishment is unjust because 
it is unmerciful, and it is unmerciful because it is unjust. 
Such arguments cannot convince those who have minds 
to think for themselves. If, indeed, it may be called 
argument, it is argumentum ad ignorantiam^ ad cap- 
tandum vulgus. An argument founded on the ignorance 
of fact to ensnare the vulgar." — Sword of Truth. 

CXXX. " Universalis m will do to live by, but it will 
not do to die by." There could be no greater mistake. 
The only thing to be determined is this : Is it true, or 
false ? If false, it will do neither for life or death. 
Religious error is never conducive to a sound morality, 
while religious truth is. Universalism. is false; it is an 
evil tree, and therefore cannot bring forth good fruit. 
It is hoped that the senseless saying, "It will do to live 
by, but not to die by," will never again be uttered by 
any lover of truth. We need the same religion in life 
that we do in the dying hour. As it respects the boasted 
support of Universalism in death, it is all a delusion. A 
mere willingness to die is no sure evidence of Christian 



384 



XJniyees axism not of the Bible. [Part II, 



truth or character. Heathen devotees are willing to die; 
and Infidels, -regardless of the future, have sometimes 
been willing to die. Men with consciences " seared w T ith 
a hot iron " and hearts steeped in crime have also 
evinced a willingness to die. Some Universalists have 
so long resisted God's Spirit and rejected his truth that 
they are left to "believe a lie," (2 Thess. ii, 10-12,) and 
some die while under this delusion. 

Others among them, w r ho have made less progress in 
their warfare with God, have been aroused to a sense of 
their danger on the very verge of eternity, finding it to 
be a fearful truth that Ilniversalism " will not do to 
die by." When a poor sinner is thus awakened, it calls 
into requisition all the skill his Universalist attendants 
are capable of to keep it from the public ear, and also to 
prevent intercourse with Christians. Many such have 
been smuggled out of the world without a Christian to 
counsel them or to offer a prayer in their behalf. It is 
known that a powerful influence often goes out from the 
death-bed scene in opposition to their sentiments ; hence 
unnecessary restrictions are often imposed to prevent 
Christians from visiting the sick and dying, and warnings 
have been hushed which would have carried conviction 
through whole neighborhoods. There is no end to the 
deceptions used to produce the impression that Univer- 
salis m yields true support in death. 

CXXXI. Was the belief of endless punishment com- 
mon both among Jews and Gentiles in our Saviour's 
time ? 

Universalists shall speak for themselves, as their testi- . 
mony will not be doubted upon this point. 

" The Pharisees, it is well known, believed in the end- 
less punishment of human souls." — Lectures by W. JV. 
Fernald, p. 79. " It is generally admitted that the Jews, 
in our Saviour's day, maintained the Pagan notion of 



Sec. 131.] Universalis^ xot of the Bible. 385 



immortal happiness for the righteous, and undying pain 
for the sinner.'' — Letter in the Trumpet of Feb. 3, 1838, 
by W, C. Uanscom, a Universalist minister. " That the 
Pharisees believed in a punishment after death, we do 
not deny." — Whittemore 's Notes on the Parables, p. 62. 
"Jews and heathens believed in endless punishment." 
—Balfour's Essays, p. 326. 

The following will show how extensively it prevailed 
among the Jews when our Saviour, the greatest of 
teachers, sojourned among them. Mr. Balfour, in his 
"Inquiry," p. 260, where he attempts to show that the 
Jews obtained their views of endless punishment from 
the heathen, says : " The introduction of this and other 
heathen opinions among the Jews was gradual, but in 
the days of our Lord had become general, with perhaps 
the exception of the sect of the Sadducees." This sect 
composed but a small part of the Jewish nation. 

Were Christ and his apostles Universalists ? Were 
they believers in no future and eternal punishment ? 

Most assuredly they were, if Universalism is true. If 
they were not, then it is false. No time need be spent 
to prove this. Christ and his apostles, then, being Uni- 
versalists, spent their time and preached among those 
entirely opposed to this doctrine, and believers in endless 
punishment. 

Was it any part of the work of Christ and his apostles 
to point out and rebuke the errors of the age in which he 
lived ? 

Mr. Whittemore shall answer : 

" Our Saviour when on earth labored hard to root up 
the plants which his Father had not planted. He knew 
that error was injurious to man, and that he performed 
an act of kindness and duty in exposing it. How care- 
ful was he to point out the errors which men had im- 
bibed. ! 6 Ye have heard,' 9 said he, ' that it hath been said. 
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. JBut I saj 

25 



386 



Uniyersalism not of the Bible. [Part IT, 



unto you, resist not evil,' etc. c Y~e have heard that it hath 
been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, arid hate thine 
enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless 
them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, 
and pray for them which despite fully use you and per- 
secute yon.' He detailed some of the errors of the 
Scribes and Pharisees relative to swearing by the gold 
of the temple, and the gilt upon the altar, and called 
them blind guides. He was careful also to point out the 
errors of their conduct, as well as of their opinions. The 
apostles followed our Saviour in their practice. c Paul 
and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation 
with 5 c certain men which came down from Judea,' and 
taught the brethren that they could not be saved, except 
they were circumcised after the manner of Moses. They 
endeavored to root up a plant which God had not 
planted. It would be a task far too arduous to mention 
all the instances recorded in the New Testament, of 
Christ and his apostles pointing out and contend ng 
against the errors of the age in which he lived." — Tram- 
pet, No. 750. 

Here it is admitted, yea, contended for, by Mr. W., 
tnat the Saviour was careful to point out the errors which 
men had imbibed, and that so numerous are the instances 
where Christ and his apostles have pointed out and con- 
tended against the errors of the age in which they lived, 
that it would be a task far too arduous to mention all 
that are recorded in the New Testament. 

Do Universa.lists of our time deem endless punishment 
the chief of errors, and do they vigorously and inces- 
santly oppose it ? 

Mr. Drew, one of the great men of the order, shall 
answer : 

Speaking of the doctrine in question, he says, (" Ban- 
ner,' 5 Feb. 2, 1841 :) " We believe it to be the greatest error 
of our times — one fraught with the worst results to so- 



Sec. 131.] UXIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



387 



ciety" "Put all the other errors of the world into one, 
and this would not equal in magnitude that to which ice 
refer" "Is it any longer a wonder to your mind, 
reader, that we as Univtrsalists should employ so much 
of our time in -preaching and writing against that grand 
error ? Nay, but we must do itP In keeping with these 
extracts are their pulpits and presses generally. This 
is but a sample of what might fill volumes, indicative of 
the views, feelings, and labors of these men. 

Have ice any account whatever that Christ and his 
apostles treated the doctrine of endless punishment as an 
error, by rebuking it, showing its fated effects, and cau- 
tioning the people against it? 

Now, here is the Great Teacher, who has come from 
heaven to teach Universalism, and called and commis- 
sioned his apostles to engage in the same work. Mr. 
TYhittemore says of him that he was careful to point out 
the errors which men had imbibed ; and so numerous are 
the instances where Christ and his apostles have con- 
tended against the errors of their age that it would be a 
task far too arduous to 'mention cdl that are recorded in 
the New Testament, They commenced and exercised 
their ministry among believers in endless punishment — 
an error so great that Mr. Drew says of it, " Put all the 
other errors of the world into one, and this would not 
equal it in magnitude." iSTow, we ask, may we not ex- 
pect to find something very explicit, decided, and pointed 
from the Son of God in opposition to this error ; some- 
thing that shall make the matter clear to the Church in 
all after ages, something at least analogous to the efforts 
against it by modern Universalist preachers ? We 
should certainly expect this. But what is the fact ? It 
is nowhere to be found in all the Scriptures that Christ, 
or any of his followers, ever spent a moment's time in 
disproving the doctrine, or in portraying to their hearers 
its dreadful effects, or in warning them against it, We 



388 



Uniyersalism not of the Bible. [Part II, 



boldly assert that not a single instance of this character 
can be found, Let Universalists produce one if they 
can. 

To what shall we attribute this silence? Could not 
the Saviour perceive the dreadful effects of this error, 
as well as men in our day ? Or, perceiving, had he no 
heart to feel as well as they ? Had pity left the Son 
of Man ? And, what is still more surprising, he did ex- 
plicitly point out and correct other errors, which were 
as the pebble to the mountain when compared with this, 
if we may believe the smallest part of what its oppo- 
nents say of it. He faithfully exposed the errors of the 
Pharisees ; such as their superstitious observance of the 
Sabbath, their washing of hands and pots, their making 
long prayers, the inconsistency of their " tithing the mint, 
anise, and cummin" while they neglected the weightier 
matters of the law, and many other things; but he 
wholly passed over this great error. The apostles, too, 
were often found opposing errors of little consequence 
compared with this, if Universalism is true. "How 
boldly and explicitly Paul opposes the sentiment that 
4 by the deeds of the law men could be justified in the 
sight of God ! ' With what a masterly argument he 
overthrew the Sadducean heresy, that 6 there is no re- 
d surrection ! ' How fearlessly and directly he denounced 
the heresy of Hymeneus and Philetus, that 6 the resur- 
rection was already past ! ' Indeed, a very considerable 
portion of the Epistles of Paul is taken up in opposing 
the prevalent errors of the time." In the book of Acts, 
too, we find prevailing errors exposed, and faithful re- 
proof administered and caution given, by different 
apostles. Also, in the Epistles of James, Peter, John, 
and Jude, we find the errors of the times pointedly re- 
buked and glaringly exposed. But nowhere in the 
book of Acts, or any of the Epistles, do we learn that 
they ever rebuked the doctrines of a future judgment 



Sec. 131.] Universalism not oe the Bible. 389 



and an endless punishment. How unlike modern Uni- 
versalists, whose chief labor consists in exposing what 
they call their dreadful effects, and appealing to the 
sympathies of men respecting them ! 
Let us further inquire : 

Did the Saviour and his apostles teach a future judg- 
ment and eternal punishment ? Did they use language 
calculated to confirm those they addressed in these errors^ 
if they icere such ? 

To this we reply, they most certainly did. To say 
nothing of the impression Matt, xxv, 31-46, always 
makes upon the mind of the unsophisticated reader, we 
think there is not one at all acquainted with Jewish 
belief relative to a future state but must be convinced 
that our Lord's Jewish hearers, when he uttered this 
passage, must have understood him as teaching a gen- 
eral judgment, and endless bliss and misery. See an 
extract from Josephus. Sec. XLL 

"In hell [hades) he lifted up his eyes, being in tor- 
ments." Luke xvi, 23. Mr. Balfour admits ("Inq.," 
pp. 74-79) that when our Saviour spoke these words 
" the opinion prevailed among the Jews that there were 
torments in hades ; " and he will have it that our Lord 
speaks in accordance with popular opinions. The Sav- 
iour, then, instead of opposing a dangerous and prevail- 
ing error, speaks in accordance with popular opinion 
upon the subject. How then must his hearers have 
understood him? He qualifies nothing. He must have 
been understood as teaching torments in the invisible or 
spirit world. 

For understanding the language of the Bible, the fol- 
lowing common-sense rule is given by an eminent 
writer: 

" The meaning of a word used by any writer is the 
meaning affixed to it by those for whom he immediately 
wrote. For there is a kind of natural compact between 



390 



TJniyeksalism not or the Bible. [Part II, 



those who write and those who speak a language, by 
which they are mutually bound to use words in a cer- 
tain sense ; he, therefore, who uses such words in a dif- 
ferent signification in a manner violates the compact, 
and is in danger of leading men into error." — Home's 
Introd., vol. i, p. 325. 

It is obvious that this rule applies with force to the 
subject under consideration. As a few out of the many, 
the reader is referred to the following texts: Mark iii, 
29; Luke xii, 4, 5; John v, 28, 29; Matt, x, 15-28; 
Rom. ii, 4-16; xiv, 10-12; Heb. vi, 1, 2; ix, 27, 28; 
2 Thess. i, 7-10 ; 2 Pet. ii, 4-9. If the belief of those 
to whom these texts were addressed is considered, and 
also the labored, unnatural, and absurd interpretations 
Universalists are under the necessity of giving to de- 
stroy their force, what candid mind, we ask, but must 
see that Christ and his apostles not only did not oppose 
the doctrines of future judgment and endless punish 
ment, but that they actually did sustain them by their 
own teachings ? 

Let us again inquire : 

Did either Jews or Gentiles oppose Christ and his 
followers for teaching the future salvation of all men, 
or for rejecting the opposite doctrine? 

There is not a single instance in the Scriptures where 
they met with such opposition. "Universalists have 
often asserted that Christ was opposed for the same 
cause they are now, namely, his Universalism. But 
this is mere assumption, without any foundation either 
in the history of our Lord or the Pharisees. That the 
Pharisees were the enemies of Christ, is well known, 
and as such, accused him of many things, such as his 
being an enemy to Caesar, as in league with Beelzebub, 
a blasphemer, etc. On his trial Pilate said to him, 
" Behold how many things they witness against thee ; " 
but we look in vain to find that they ever charged him 



Sec. 131.] Uniyersalism not of the Bible. 



391 



with holding and teaching no future and eternal pun- 
ishment for the wicked. The Pharisees being his ene- 
mies, and the doctrine of eternal punishment being gen- 
erally believed, both among Jews and Gentiles, might 
we not reasonably suppose that Christ's being a " per- 
fect Universalist " would have occupied a prominent 
place in the charges brought against him from time to 
time. But upon this point there is a dead silence. He 
never complained of the Jews for holding the doctrine 
of eternal punishment, neither did the Jews of him 
for holding the salvation of all men. The same is 
true of all his apostles, who labored both among the 
Jews and Gentiles. For instance, look at the charges 
brought against Paul at different times ; but never is he 
charged with teaching the salvation of all men. In the 
vindication of his character from heresy (Acts xxiv, 15) 
he says: "And (I) have hope toward God, which they 
(the Jews) themselves allow, that there shall be a resur- 
rection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." 
What did the Jews allow ? None wiil assert that they 
allowed, or believed, that all men would be ushered 
into bliss by the resurrection. But they did believe 
that the just and unjust would be raised and judged, 
and that one class would be welcomed to bliss, and the 
other sentenced to endless punishment. This was 
Paul's belief. All are aware of the great labor of Uni- 
versalists to portray before the people the dreadful con- 
sequences of the doctrine of eternal punishment. Bat 
be it known that there is not a single precedent for this 
course in the Bible. They have not produced one, for 
the good reason that they cannot. 

Let it be observed that while they fail to give one • 
text to show that either our Saviour or any of his apos- 
tles ever came in collision with either Jew or Gentile 
upon the doctrine in question, they do bring a solitary 
text in which they profess to think Christ warned 



392 



Universalis?,! not of the Bjble. [Part IT, 



his disciples against it. It is this : Matt, xvi, 6, "Then 
said Jesus unto them, Beware of the leaven (doctrine, 
ver. 12) of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." Univer- 
salists will have it that this means, " Beware of the 
doctrine of endless punishment." But did the Saddu 
cees believe that ? See Sec. XCV., where the true 
sense is given, and the perversion exposed. 

There is one text more they sometimes bring, to prove 
that Paul and others were persecuted for preaching their 
faith. It is 1 Tim. iv, 10: u Therefore we both labor 
and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, 
who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that 
believe." That this is a perversion may be seen, Sec. 
XCIV. 

A favorite argument to prove Christ and his apostles 
Universalists may be briefly stated thus : 

The Pharisees hated Christ and his apostles ; the 
Pharisees were Partiaiists; therefore Christ and his 
apostles must have been Universalists. Their disciples 
often use this argument in substance, if not in form, and 
they obtain it from their teachers ; for none can sit long 
under their ministry without learning from them that 
the hatred the Pharisees bore to Christ and his apostles 
was on account of their Universalism. This, you will 
see, is a very easy method to prove people Universalists. 
Let us try it again. The Pharisees hated all heathens ; 
the Pharisees were Partiaiists ; therefore the millions of 
heathen must have been Universalists. So you see that 
by this simple process, not only Christ and his apostles 
are made Universalists, but all the heathen. 

Other grounds of difference, besides a point or two of 
doctrine, may call forth hatred. Papists have persecuted 
Protestants, and put them to death, yet they have ever 
agreed upon some points of doctrine. We do not con- 
tend that Christ taught or sanctioned all the doctrmes 
of the Pharisees, Christ called them hypocrites, a gen.- 



Sec. 131.] UxiVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



393 



eration of vipers, and threatened them with the damna- 
ti n of hell, and claimed, in opposition to their views, to 
be the Messiah. Yet Universalists, it would seem, can 
see no possible reason why the Jews should have hated 
Christ unless he was a Universalist ! They will have it, 
too, that our Lord's Universalism was shockingly offen- 
sive to the Jews, and yet in all their controversy with 
him, and their proceedings against him, it is not so much 
as once charged against him, or even named ! 

Let the reader weigh well the following thoughts : 

1. Our Lord and his apostles, whose business it was 
to establish truth and overthrow error, spent their time 
upon earth among believers in endless punishment. 

2. Deriving our knowledge from the Bible, they 
never exposed or rebuked the doctrine in a single in- 
stance. 

3. If they were Universalists, they taught the doctrine, 
and it must have been known to the Jews. Charges of 
heresy were from time to time brought against them by 
their Jewish enemies, but in no single instance, either 
formally, incidentally, or accidentally, are they charged 
with holding the salvation of all men. 

4. They used the same language in the presence of 
the Jews that the Jews did to teach some of their 
prominent doctrines of a future state ; or, as Mr. Bal- 
four says, they spoke in accordance with popular opinions. 

Xow to what shaH we attribute their conformity in 
language to Jewish belief, and the complete absence of 
any collision either with Jews or Gentiles upon the 
doctrines in question, and their failure to rebuke a future 
judgment and endless punishment by a single direct 
attack or exposure ? 

Mr. T. B. Thayer, who is one of the ablest perverters 
of the Scriptures in the denomination, speaking of end- 
less punishment, says, " It was the popular doctrine of 
the day in the time of the Saviour," and asserts that 



394 



UNIVERSALIS*! NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part II, 



Christ maintained toward it a position of u entire silence" 
—Hist, of E. Pun., p. 137. 

Had not Christ and his apostles as much love for 
human kind, and sympathy for suffering humanity, as 
modern Universalist ministers? Were they so blind 
that they could not see the fatal effects of this great and 
alarming error ? Or were they wanting in courage to 
speak out and warn the people ? Who so blind as not 
to see that if Universalists have the truth upon this sub- 
ject Christ and his apostles were sadly deficient as 
Universalist ministers? Or, rather, who so blind as not 
to see that Universalism is glaringly false ? that Christ 
and the apostles taught no such doctrine, but were be- 
lievers and teachers of endless punishment ? Do Uni- 
versalist ministers sometimes say eloquent things con- 
cerning the example of Christ ? Suppose they were to 
imitate it, would they ever clamor against endless punish- 
ment ? would they ever appeal to human sympathy, 
and raise arguments from the attributes of God against 
the doctrine ? And suppose they were to use the same 
language Jesus did, without qualification, would they 
ever be taken for teachers of Universalism ? Truly this 
is an age of improvement, for these moderns are far in 
advance of the Master ! 

Think upon the facts stated in this section, reader, and 
be a Universalist if you can. 

CXXXII. " The doctrine of endless misery, that in- 
human dogma, which is common to both Arminians and 
Calvinists, was first openly asserted in the Christian 
Church by Tertullian, in the third century. Until this 
time no declaration of any such doctrine as endless 
misery by any professed disciple of Jesus is known to 
have been made." — Univ. Almanac, 1844, p. 36. 

This appears to be a common-stock idea with Univer- 
salist writers, but it is an historical falsehood. Mr. H, 



SeC. 132.1 UXIYERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



395 



Ballou, 2d, some years since published what he called 
the " Ancient History of TJniversalism," in which he 
states concerning Tertullian as follows : " He is thought 
to have been the first Christian writer who expressly 
asserted that the torments of the damned will be of 
equal duration with the happiness of the blest." — P. 80. 
Looking to Mr. Ballou as an oracle, he has by this state- 
ment misled all who have put their trust in him. If Mr. 
B. had no knowledge of such an important work as 
Justin Martyr's " Apology," he was not qualified to 
write Church history : if he had a knowledge of this 
work, then there was a wicked concealment of facts. 
Justin was one of the most learned of all the early 
Fathers, and among his valuable works are his Apolo- 
gies, or what would be called in our times defenses of 
Christian doctrines and practice, the first of which he 
addressed to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius about 
A. D. 150. This, translated by Rev. W". Reeves, London, 
1709, is before us, from which Ave give the following ex- 
tracts : 

He says, "Moreover we say, that the souls of the 
wicked being reunited to the same bodies, shall be eon- 
signed over to eternal torments, and not, as Plato loill 
have it, to the period of a thousand years only : but if 
you will affirm this to be incredible or impossible, there 
is no help for you, but you must fcdl from error to error, 
till the day of judgment convinces you ice are righV — 
P. 26. 

The word eternal \& evidently used here to distinguish 
between the endless punishment believed by Christians, 
and the limited one taught by Plato, the heathen philos- 
opher. 

Again he says, "Z must tell you likewise, that of all 
men living ice are the greatest promoters of peace, and 
bring you in the most powerful auxiliaries to establish it 
in your dominions, by teaching that it is impossible for 



896 



Uniyersalism not of the Bible. [Part II, 



any worker of iniquity, any covetous or insidious person, 
any one, either vicious or virtuous, to hide himself from 
God ; and that every one is stepping forward into ever- 
lasting misery or happiness, according to his works." — 
P. 31. 

Observe, " every one is stepping forward into everlast- 
ing misery or happiness" Is the word everlasting used 
in a borrowed sense here? Then is the happiness of the 
righteous limited. All must see that it is used in its 
proper sense to signify endless duration. 

Once more lie says, " When we assert departed souls to 
be in a state of sensibility ; and the wicked to be in tor- 
ments, but the good free from pain and in a blissful con- 
dition, ice assert no more than your poets and philoso- 
phers ." 

"But the ringleader and the prince of evil spirits is by 
us called the serpent, and Satan, and false accuser, as you 
may easily find from our Scriptures, who, together with 
all his hosts of angels and men like himself shall be 
thrust into fire, there to be tormented world without end, 
as our Christ hath foretold " 

"For, tell you I must, that if you persist in this course 
of iniquity you shall not escape the vengeance of God 
in another world. — Pp. 49, 59, 127. 

Remark, u tormented world without end, as our Christ 
hath foretolcV All must see that endless punishment 
is declared by Justin to be a doctrine taught by Christ 
and believed by Christians; for he is not giving his 
own belief merely, but the doctrines of the Christians 
generally. This apology was written at least fifty years 
before Tertullian flourished.* 

°Mr. H. Ballou, 2d, in his History, attempts to show that Justin 
believed in the eventual annihilation of the wicked. This lie does by 
quotations from his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. It is well un- 
derstood that his Dialogue was written some years after his first 
Apology. This Mr. Ballou himself asserts as follows: "The Dia- 



Sec. 132.] XJniveesamsm not of the Bible. 397 



Some years since we published a work containing an 
examination of the "Ancient History," by Ballon, and 
the "Modern History, ,? by Whittemore, in which their 
errors upon this subject were exposed. The following 
is a synopsis of our investigation down to A. D. 210. 

Barnabas, who lived in the time of the apostles, says 
of Christ, " after the resurrection he will judge the 
loorld." " The way of darkness is crooked, and full of 
cursing, for it is the way of eternal death with punish- 
ment™ 

Clemens Romanus^ a fellow-laborer with St. Paul, 
says, "If we disobey his (Christ's) commands, nothing 
shall deliver us from eternal punishment" 

Ignatius, who was acquainted with St. Peter and 
Paul, says of some, "They shall not inherit the kingdom 
of God" " shall depart into unquenchable fire" 

JPolycarpy a disciple of St. John, talks of Christ's 
coming to " judge the quick and the dead,''' of the 
" eternal fire of God's judgment reserved for the wicked 
in the other world" 

Justin Martyr^ who lived at the time of Poly carp, 
and had doubtless seen St. John, testifies abundantly, as 
we have seen, in favor of future judgment and endless 
punishment. 

logue with Trypho was written certainly after the First Apology, but 
perhaps before the Second, which is generally placed at the year 162." 
— Anc. Hist, p. 56. Xote. Whatever may have been Justin's views 
when he wrote his Dialogue, he has most certainly testified in favor 
of endless punishment in his First Apology, which was written years 
before. Observe, it is from the First Apology we quote; and further- 
more, he was not giving his own opinions merely to the Roman Em- 
peror, but the doctrines of Christians generally at that time. Why 
did not Mr. Ballon furnish some extracts from Justin's First Apology, 
to show his readers what Christians believed respecting endless pun- 
ishment, a day of judgment, the coming of Christ, etc.. only fifty years 
from the death of St. John, and while Polycarp, the disciple of John, 
was still aiive ? He probably was not anxious for his readers to 
know these things, 



398 



Universalism not of the Bible. [Part II, 



Her mas, about A. D. 150, or before, taught the possi- 
bility of such an apostasy as that there could be no re- 
turn, that they might "depart from God forever " 

Tatian (A. D. 170) taught that there will be a "res- 
urrection and judgment at the end of the world" that 
some will " undergo death i?i immortality." 

The Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienna 
(A. D. 177) says this of one: that she, a recollecting 
the eternal punishment in hell, reproved her tormentors." 

Athenagoras (A. D. 180) teaches that "at the day of 
judgment reivards and punishments will he distributed 
to mankind as they have done well or ill" 

Theophilus (A. D. 181) advises one to study the 
Scriptures, that he might shun eternal torments?'' 

Irenceus, (A. D. 180-190,) in giving the sentiments of 
all Christians, and stating that they were received from 
the apostles and their immediate disciples, asserts & gen- 
eral resurrection and judgment, when the wicked shall 
be sent into everlasting fire, and the righteous into life 
and glory for every 

Clemens Alexandrinus (A. D. 190-196) taught a 
future hell, and that the same means would be used 
there for the salvation of men that are used here. He 
was probably a Restorationist. 

TertuUian (A. D. 200-204) taught a future judg- 
ment and eterncd ]?u?iishment" 

Minucius Felix (A. D. 210) asserted the eternity of 
hell torments" 

The l eader may rest assured, that down to this period 
(A. D. 210) no Christian writer is known to have 
asserted that there will be no future judgment, or no 
future punishment; that our conduct here cannot affect 
our future state ; or that by the resurrection all are to 
become holy and happy. Such sentiments were not 
known in the early days of Christianity. Mr. Ballon, 
in his history, has not attempted to show that one of 



SeC. 132.] UxiVERSALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 



399 



the above-named notions are to be found in any Chris- 
tian writings down to this period ; but says of them, 
("Anc. Hist., p. 83,) "That there teas a future state of 
suffering they all agreed" 

We should like, would space afford, to give large ex- 
tracts from our former work ; but a few statements 
upon which the reader can rely as the result of inves- 
tigation must suffice. 

Clemens Alexandrinus, already named, and Origen, 
(A. D. 230,) taught restoration, obtaining it not from 
the Bible, but from the Platonic philosophy ; and Ori- 
gen propagated it by adopting the allegorical method 
with the Scriptures. 

After Origen, there is no declaration on the part of 
any Christian writer whose works have come down to 
us that Universal Restoration was his belief, or the be- 
lief of others, until 13-4 years from the time Origen 
flourished, which was A. D. 230, or 111 years after his 
death, which took place A. D. 250. The writings of 
Titus, Bishop of Bostra, A. D. 364, are the first named 
by Mr. Ballou as containing the doctrine, after Origen. 

8. That although we find the doctrine in the writings 
of a very few men in the fourth century, yet it never 
was so extensively received as modern Universalists 
would have us believe; but that, in addition to the 134 
years from Origen to Titus of Bostra, there are at least 
two periods, one of 50 and another of 170 years, in 
which Mr. Ballou can produce no trace of the doctrine. 
Since the Reformation by Luther, some of the Anabap- 
tists, Unitarians, and others, both in Europe and in this 
country, have held the doctrine of Universal Restora- 
tion, down to the present time ; but they have always 
been f^w in number compared with Evangelical Chris- 
tians. 

As it respects the sentiments that man's conduct here 
cannot affect his future state, and that all will be ren- 



400 UmvERSAMSM not of the Bible. [Fart II, 



derel holy and happy by the resurrection, neither Mr. 
Ballou nor Mr. Whittemore has produced a single in- 
stance, showing that they were held by any professed 
Christian, from the time of St. John down to the com- 
mencement of the present century. It remained for 
men in the nineteenth century to produce these errors, 
and call them Christian doctrines. 

31 r. Whittemore had access to the library of the 
Harvard University, which contains as large, if not the 
largest, number of theological works of any library in 
the United States. Doubtless Mr. Ballou had the same 
privilege with Mr, Whittemore in the preparation of 
his work. How long Mr. Ballou's work was in prepara- 
tion we are not informed ; but Mr. Whittemore has told 
us that he was upward of five years in collecting mate- 
rials for the "Modern History/' and that he steadily 
pursued his purpose, without regard either to labor or 
expense. None will doubt but what these men did the 
very best they could for Univcrsalism, and for modern 
views in particular. Xow with all their years of perse- 
vering labor and research, and with all the advantages 
of the extensive library in Cambridge, how many have 
they found professing to be and received by the people 
as Christian ministers, who have had the boldness to 
openly avow and advocate the doctrine that all men 
will be saved, without any suffering beyond this mortal 
life? How many such men have they found among the 
thousands of ministers named on the pages of the Har- 
vard College library, from the time of St. John down 
to the commencement of the present century? We 
answer, xot one, according to their own showing ! 
Samuel Richardson ("Mod. Hist., r ' p. 71) was so far 
from boldly advocating the doctrine that he kept him- 
self behind the curtain, sending forth his work without 
his name, if, indeed, he was the author of the work at- 
tributed to him. Some have thought he was not. 



Sec. 132.] U^IYEESAUSM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 



401 



Mr. Whitteinore occupies four pages and a half of his 
"Modern History'' with an account of Richard Coppin, 
who lived about the middle of the sixteenth century. 
T \Vell may he make much of him, for it is the first in- 
stance of which we have any account in history of the 
public vindication of the doctrine of the salvation of all 
men, without anv future suffering. He is named in none 
of the Church histories before us, save Mr. Whittemore's. 
He appears to have been a reckless fanatic, very like the 
Come-outers of our day, and we have no account that 
he was ever recognized as a Gospel minister by any body 
of professed Christians whatever. 

The doctrine that all men, irrespective of their char- 
acter or agency, shall be saved without any future suf- 
ferings, was openly avowed and advocated for the first 
time, by a man calling himself a Christian minister, about 
fifty-four years ago. Hosea Ballon, the elder, was that 
man. Strange that the world should have been destitute 
of a true Gospel minister so long ! 

Mr. Ballou advanced his scheme of no future punish- 
ment about 1818. There is one thing in this man's 
history worthy of remark. He states that during a ref- 
ormation, he became interested in religion, and joined 
the Calvin Baptist Church, of which his father was the 
minister, in January, 1789, being then in his nineteenth 
year. He says of himself : "From that period to the 
present, I have been a constant student of the science of 
divinity.'' 

The fall before he was twenty-one he commenced 
preaching Cniversalism. So it appears that he studied 
about twenty-hine years, twenty-seven of which he was a 
preacher^ before he found out that the Bible taught no 
future suffering ! Surely this is slow work for a con- 
stant student of divinity, especially if TJniversalist senti- 
ments are taught as clearly in the Bible as Mr. Whitte- 
niore would have us believe when he says, (" Trumpet," 



402 UmvERSALisM not of the Bible. [Part II, 



'No. 646 :) u We are not ashamed to boast, that of all 
the opinions in Christendom, ours grow most naturally 
out of the sacred writings ! " That XJniversalists had 
been very anxious to get rid of the doctrine of future 
judgment and punishment is evident from the account 
given by Mr. Ballou himself, which is as follows, ("Fut. 
Retrib.," p. 182 :) " When I lived in Portsmouth, X. H., 
some fourteen or fifteen years ago, (about 1817 or 1818,) I 
was made exceeding glad by discovering in my study 
on Heb. ix, 27, 28, what I now believe to be the true ap- 
plication and use of the passage. I immediately com- 
municated my thoughts on this text, and all accepted 
the exposition with approbation and delight." 

About this time Messrs. Turner and Ballou held a 
controversy in the *' Gospel Visitant " in order to satisfy 
themselves, in which, says Mr. B., "We agreed to do the 
best we could ; he in favor of future punishment, and I 
the contrary." 

" While attending to this correspondence I became 
entirely satisfied that the Scriptures begin and end the 
history of sin in flesh and blood ; and that beyond this 
mortal existence the Bible teaches no other sentient 
state but that which is called by the blessed name of 
life and immortality." 

This account of Mr. Ballou's early life we find in the 
" Modern History of Universalism," pp. 433-438. 

CXXXIII. The less informed in the order are led to 
believe, by the glowing accounts in their papers, that 
Universalism is about to take the world by its rapid in- 
crease. Let us look at this idea in the light of facts. 

By the statistics of the order for 1872 it appears that 
Universalists number in the United States six hundred 
and twenty-six ministers and twenty-four thousand and 
twenty-one Church-members. To say nothing of the 
many evangelical denominations, besides the Methodists, 



Sec. 133.] Universausm not of the Bible. 



403 



that are increasing with great rapidity, and whose mis- 
sionaries are belting the earth, let us take a comparative 
view of the Methodist and Universalist denominations. 
Although John Murray held scarcely any thing in com- 
mon with modern Universalists, yet they proclaim him 
the father of Universalism in America. He landed upon 
our shores in 1770. Methodism commenced in America 
by the labors of Philip Embury, a local preacher in New 
York, in 1766, four years only before the arrival of 
Murray. 

From the statistics of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
for the same year with the Universalists statistics named, 
we find the following: Members, one million four hun- 
dred and twenty-six thousand, six hundred and ninety- 
two; traveling preachers, nine thousand six hundred and 
ninety-nine ; local preachers, eleven thousand three hun- 
dred and eighty-two, making a total of twenty-one thou- 
sand and eighty-six. The statistics of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, for the same year stand thus : 
Members, five hundred and seventy-four thousand eight 
hundred and forty ; traveling and local preachers, seven 
thousand four hundred and thirty-nine. Taking these 
together, which, till a few years ago, were one body, we 
have a membership of two millions one hundred thou- 
sand five hundred and thirty -two , and a ministry of 
thirty thousand and fifty. 

There are not only these, but several other sects of 
Methodists, as the Protestant, the Wesleyan, and two 
respectable bodies of Colored Methodists, and others, 
numbering in all about five hundred thousand members 
and a ministry of about three thousand. These Churches 
agree with the parent body in doctrine and very nearly 
so in discipline. They are a part of the great family of 
Methodists resulting from the inauguration of Method- 
ism in New York by Philip Embury in 1766. Just 
compare Universalism as to Church-membership and 



404 



Unite rsalism not op the Bible. [Part II, 



ministry with Methodism. Observe, the advent of 
Murray was but four years after Embury commenced. 
Now Methodism numbers its millions of members and 
more than thirty thousand ministers, while Universalism 
numbers but twenty-four thousand Church-members and 
six hundred and twenty-six ministers ! Then take into 
the account the large increase of other Evangelical 
bodies, embracing millions of members and thousands 
of ministers, enough, including the Methodist clergy, to 
make up the number of fifty-eight thousand in the 
United States, who are zealous in spreading the Saviour's 
name over the world, and it will be seen that Universal- 
ism has not much to boast of. Universalism has done 
great mischief in the world, and its progress has been 
considerable when contemplated by itself; yet when 
compared with the great increase of our population and 
the progress of truth, it has been but small. If it did 
spread as rapidly as some of its admirers are induced to 
believe, this would not be evidence of its truthfulness. 
Methodism has far outstripped it in numbers, but who 
WTmld think of contending that it must be true solely on 
this account ? If a doctrine spreads rapidly, and its re- 
ception transforms wicked men into habits of virtue and 
piety, we safely conclude that it is of God, that it is 
true. But w T here shall we look for such results from the 
spread of Universalism'? We ask, Where? Much of 
the difficulty of inducing people to join their Churches 
has grown out of the education received from the pulpit 
and press of the denomination. Files of the " Trumpet," 
edited by T. Whittemore from 1829 to 1840, came into 
our possession some years since. In looking them over 
we cease to wonder that so few are in their Churches. 
From the drift we should conclude that all who put their 
trust in Universalist ministers at that day would hate 
every thing pertaining to a Church. Among some choice 
specimens of liberality are Whittemore's sermon on the 



See. 134.] Uniyeesalism not op the Bible. 



405 



4< World's People," and Balfour on "Four Days Meetings." 
But some of the better class of Universalists are doubt- 
less conscious that they are not proper persons to join an 
organization called a Church with their unchanged char- 
acter. Mr. J. R. Smith, who renounced TJniversalism a 
few years since, in his book, " TJniversalism As It Is," 
states that when he preached in Natick, Mass., he made 
an effort to form a Church, and the society " all said it 
would be a good thing," that "it would look well in the 
eyes of the world," but when he called upon them to 
join but one was willing to take " the name of Christ in 
that relation." — P. 177. On more mature reflection it 
may have been thought that for such as they were it 
would be carrying the joke a little too far to set up a 
Church. (Sec. CXXXV.) 

CXXXIV. Christians, because they cannot fellowship 
Universalists, are often charged with bigotry. We 
deny the charge, and submit the following : 

If evangelical Christians hold the fundamental truths 
of the Bible, then the doctrines which stand directly 
opposed to these must be infidel in their character. 
jSTone, we think, will dispute this. That they do hold 
the truths of the Bible they firmly believe. The ques- 
tion we now propose is this : Is the Universalist system 
antagonistical to the whole system of evangelical Chris- 
tianity ? Leading men in the order shall answer this. 
Mr. Williamson says : 

" I have no disposition to conceal the fact that there 
is a wide and irreconcilable difference between us and 
our opposers ; nor can it be denied that if we are right 
they are wrong ; not merely in some points, but radically, 
and I had almost said totally, wrong. This is a truth 
with which we are well acquainted ; and that man pur- 
sues a mistaken policy, nay, even a wicked course of 
hypocrisy, who attempts to conceal this fact. There is 



406 UmvEESALis^i not of the Bible. [Part II, 



no manner of use in endeavoring to make it appear that 
there is but a shade of difference between us and other 
denominations ; for there is a difference, high as heaven, 
wide as the earth ; a difference as hopelessly and utterly 
irreconcilable as light and darkness ; and there is no dis- 
guising the obvious truth that if one system is true the 
other is false, desperately and hopelessly false, I had 
almost said, in its whole length and breadth." — Exp. 
and Def. of U., p. 215. 

Such is the strong language of a distinguished Uni- 
versaiist minister relative to the perfect opposition of 
the two systems. Mr. Grosh, another great man in the 
order, says: "Our faith, as of old, is opposed in every 
material part that can effect the honor of God and the 
happiness of man to the faith of the religious world." — 
Mag. and Advocate, p. 349. 

Abundance of similar testimonies are before us in their 
periodicals. We select the following from other leading 
men. In the "Trumpet" for Dec. 12, 1835, is an ar- 
ticle on the " Tendency of Universalism," taken from the 
" Gospel Banner," in which the following is found : 

" The tendency of Universalism is, obviously, opposite 
to that of Partialism. They are clearly and plainly op- 
posite sentiments, and, of course, must be opposite in 
their tendency and influence. If one of them is true 
and productive of beneficial consequences, the other is 
not, and vice versa. Both of them cannot be sustained 
by the word of God, if that word is itself worthy of 
credence ; for c a house divided against itself cannot 
stand.' If, therefore, the word of God is divided, and 
presents opposite and conflicting sentiments, it cannot 
sustain the test of critical examination, and should at 
once be abandoned." 

This is doubtless from Mr. Drew, then editor of the 
" Banner," as no correspondent "is named. 

Again : in the " Banner" of Nov. 2, 1844, is a sermon 



Sec. 134.] Universalis:*! not of the Bible. 



407 



by J. Boyden, delivered before the United States Gen- 
eral Convention of Universalis! s in Baltimore, and in 
speaking of the opposing sentiments with which Univer- 
salism had contended, he says : " How difficult, then, to 
establish a doctrine so diametrically opposed to all the 
leading and long cherished opinions of the age ! " 

The "Trumpet" is before us for August 18, 1838, in 
which Mr. Whittemore quotes the following from Mr. 
Royce, who, in contrasting Universalist with Orthodox 
views, says : 

u Universalism has £ a different God, a different Christ, 
a different spirit, a different sinner, a different sin, a dif- 
ferent atonement, a different grace, a different pardon, a 
different salvation, a different resurrection, a different 
judgment, a different punishment, a different hell, and 
a different heaven — in fine, a difference with respect to 
all the essential doctrines of Christianity.' 55 

After quoting the above, Mr. Whittemore uses the 
following very emphatic language : 

" To this ice give our assent. Mr. Royce is right. 
We confirm his words, that Partialis m is, in every sense, 
a very different doctrine from Universalism. lie cannot 
represent the difference to be too great " 

Here it is contended, by these eminent men in the 
order, that their religious belief is in all respects en- 
tirely opposite to that of Christians in general ; that the 
difference is " as high as heaven, wide as the earth, and 
as hopelessly irreconcilable as light and darkness ; that 
there is no disguising the obvious truth, that if one sys- 
tem is true the other is fcdse, desperately and hopelessly 
false;" that Universalism " is opposed in every matt- 
rial part to the faith of the religious world;" that it is 
" diametriccdly opyjosed to all the leading and long cher- 
ished opinions of the age;" and of the two systems it 
is said; "If one of them is true and productive of 
beneficial consequences, the other is not ; and vice 



408 



TJniveesalism not of the Bible. [Part II, 



versa" and we " cannot represent the difference to be too 
great" 

The unqualified testimony here given that Universal- 
ism is diametrically opposed to Evangelical Christianity 
in every essential point is correct ; and we call the special 
attention of those professors of religion who have Veen 
somewhat deceived by their goodly words and affected 
piety, as occasion may require, and are beginning to have 
a morbid sympathy for the system, to the statements of 
these leading advocates. "With these facts before them, 
what view can enlightened Christians take of the system ? 
They must either acknowledge their own system infidel 
in all its essential features, or else they must look upon 
Universalism as a system of infidelity, having assumed 
the Christian name to give it more force. This we con- 
ceive to be its true character. 

By its own showing the two systems are complete 
antipodes, and Mr. Drew, just quoted, says : " If one is 
true and productive of beneficial consequences, the other 
is not, and vice versa" 

Professing, as they do, to be a complete " opposition 
concern " what shall we think of their oft-repeated ef- 
forts to brand us with the character of bigots because 
we cannot fellowship them as Christians ? Do they 
really think that it would be an act of Christian liberal- 
ity for others to fraternize with them, and thus indorse 
their religious character and sentiments ? Might we not 
inquire, " What concord hath Christ with Belial ? or 
what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel?" 
2 Cor. vi, 15. 

Must we aid the incendiary in kindling the flames to 
burn the house over our own heads in order to be lib- 
eral ? And are we to be accounted bigots because we 
cannot unite with this class of people in a religious ca- 
pacity ? In a religious capacity, we say, for we would 
live on terms of good neighborhood with them, as men 



Sec. 134.] Univeesalism not of the Bible. 



409 



and citizens. We would unite with them, the same as 
we would with other irreligious men, to rescue our fellow- 
beings from temporal evils. 

We would as readily take hold with a Universal: st 
minister to pull a man from the water or fire as any 
one else. But we can do nothing knowingly to ind< rse 
his sentiments, or to recognize him as a Gospel minister. 
We cannot look upon him as one of Christ's ministers, 
or his gospel as Christ's Gospel. We would love Uni- 
versalists as those for whom the Saviour died, and do 
them good. We would deprive them of none of their 
rights. Tea, more, if their rights were in danger Ave 
would aid them in securing them. 

We, too, have rights. We claim the right of exemp- 
tion from the .charge of bigotry because we cannot unite; 
with those whose sole business is to destroy that which 
we consider more valuable than life itself. It is most 
conscientiously believed that no enlightened Christian 
can unite with Universalists in a religious capacity, any 
more than he can with the disciples of Tom Paine. Is 
this bigotry ? Then was the loving and beloved John 
a bigot. He says : " If there come any unto you, and 
bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, 
neither bid him Godspeed. For he that biddeth him 
Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds." 2 John x, 11. 

Surely the errors to which John refers could not have 
been more inimical to the Gospel of Christ than are 
TJniversalist doctrines. It is only infidel liberality that 
makes God's truth of so little value, and glaring and 
poisonous errors so harmless, that all who choose to call 
themselves Christians must be so considered, whatever 
the doctrines they may hold and teach. We believe no 
man can understandingly embrace Universalism and be a 
Christian, any more than a man can understandingly 
embrace Mormonism and still remain a Christian. 

There may be some deluded persons who have been 



410 



UxiVERSALTSM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part II, 



drawn among them unwittingly, who retain, for a while 
at least, something of their Christian character ; but, as 
a general thing, they soon become imbued with the 
spirit of the order, which we conceive to be nothing less 
than a war with Jehovah's attributes and penalties. 
But is it right to class all in the denomination with In- 
fidels ? This we have not done. Many are with them 
who are not yet, neither do they mean to be, intidels, 
for they are not enlightened to see the true character 
of the system. But it would be a severe reflection upon 
the intellectual character of its leading advocates were 
we to say the same of them ; and we think no Christian 
man capable of tracing all their windings, and detecting 
their perversions of Scripture, can sit down to their 
books without becoming established in the opinion that 
their leading writers have no manner of faith in the 
Bible as a divine revelation, in the proper sense of the 
term, but are infidels at heart, and have brought forth 
this system and baptized it with a Christian name, the 
more successfully to oppose vital godliness, and to make 
money by preaching and writing it. 

That they use the Bible and profess a regard for the 
Christian faith is well known. How they use the Bible 
has been shown in these pages ; and as to the profession, 
that changes nothing. Theodore Parker, and his com- 
peers in infidelity, professed a high regard for pure 
Christianity. 

Chubb, a noted infidel, entitled one of his infidel 
tracts 4 *The True Gospel Asserted." Universalists 
preach and write some smart things against infidelity, 
while its chief elements are found in their own system. 
(Sec. CXVII.) In forming this estimate we look more 
particularly at what is denied concerning God the 
Father, Christ the Son, his nature and offices, the Holy 
Ghost and his work, and the condition and wants of 
man. We look at the treatment the Bible receives, and 



Sec. 135.] Universalis^ not of the Bible. 



411 



the baneful influence of the doctrines inculcated, (Sec, 
CXXXT,) in producing irreligion, general skepticism, 
and nothingarianisin. 

Xow what is the obvious duty of Christians in re- 
spect to this system of error ? Let its votaries be 
treated with the same kindness that all other uncon- 
verted men are entitled to, but do nothing which shall 
seem to bid them Godspeed in their work. Build no 
meeting-houses with them, neither open any for them to 
disseminate their doctrine. Yield to no expediency in 
this matter; it will always prove bad in the end. Some 
Christians, to please their friends, have occasionally ac- 
companied them to Universalist meetings. The influ- 
ence of this goes to confirm them in their errors. 

If our friends have been deluded by the system, it is 
a weighty reason why we should give no countenance 
to it whatever. Let direction be sought of God, in the 
closet, and a Christian will seldom be found under the 
poisonous droppings of a Universalist sanctuary. A 
conscientious aud strict disfellowship is demanded by 
the love we should bear for Universalists themselves, for 
a world lying in wickedness, and for* u the Church of 
God which he hath purchased with his own blood." 

The elder Xapoleoirs policy was to make those upon 
whom he made his aggressions pay the expenses of his 
w r ars. Universalists pursue a similar course of policy in 
getting up fairs, levees, and Sabbath-school exhibitions, 
for which a fee of admittance is required, the object 
of which is to sustain L^niversalism. Some Christians 
are induced to attend, not fully realizing what they are 
doing, and thus they aid the enemy in his warfare against 
the armies of the living God. Christians, beware how 
you cast your influence and pay your money ! 

CXXXV. Universalism is productive of the purest 
morality. 



412 Universaxism not of the Bible. [Part II, 



This is the profession. Does it accomplish what it 
professes ? Pages might be filled with the testimony of 
such men as Charles Hudson, Adin Ballou, Dean, Todd, 
Whittaker, Smith, Bailey, Dow, Turner, and others, 
who have left the order and have given us the result of 
their observations concerning the baneful influence of 
the system, as put forth by Ballou and Whittemore. 

Those ministers who left them in 1831, calling them- 
selves Restorationists, have presented the deleterious in- 
fluence of modern Universalism, from what they them- 
selves had witnessed, in as deep colors as any anti Univer- 
saiist ever did. But for our present purpose we prefer to 
present statements from those whose loyalty to the order 
will not be doubted. Thirty-eight years ago the editor 
of the " Trumpet," in furnishing an account of his visit 
to the Maine Convention of Universalists, and of the re- 
solves reported and passed by that body, says : 

" They declare the cause of Universalism worthy the 
support of men of piety and religious feelings, and re- 
commend to the societies of Maine that no man known 
to be addicted to the habits of drunkenness , or gambling , 
or profane swedring, or who is an unbeliever of Chris- 
tianity, should be appointed to office in the societies?"— 
Trumpet, July 11, 1835. 

From this we readily learn what class of men rallied 
for the support of Universalism at that time. Observe: 
There is nothing said in the resolution about private 
members, only the officers ! This was passed thirty-six 
years alter the organization of the Maine Convention. 
What shall we think of the sin-killing power of Univer- 
salism, when, at so late a period in its existence, it was 
found necessary to pass such a resolution f 

A few years later and we find Mr. W. C. George, a 
minister of the faith, writing as follows : 

" There is, I fear, too much of disrelish among Uni- 
versalists to practical preaching. Too many who call 



Sec. 135,] Univbbsaijsm xot of the Bible. 



413 



themselves Universalists are glad to have our ministers 
hew our opponents in pieces, very much as Samuel did 
Agag, and to illustrate and defend the great doctrine of 
human salvation ; but when he exhorts them to aban- 
don bad habits and to live good lives — when he 
preaches repentance and reformation, why that is very 
good, but then the orthodox are always harping about 
religion and morality, and ice want the people to hear 
our doctrines. 5 * — Banner, March 2 7, 1841. 

If it is a self-evident fact that those who love the prac- 
tice of Christian morality do take pleasure in hearing it 
taught from the pulpit, what is the conclusion we are to 
draw from the statement of Mr. George? 

A few years after tins, Mr. J. George, of the State of 
New York, said by Mr. Drew to be one of their best 
ministers, writes as follows : 

* ; I will notice a few particulars in the character of 
our denomination which, for myself in the light of the 
Gospel, I can neither approve nor countenance." The 
first thing Mr. G. names is, i£ A want of attention to the 
vital claims of religion upon the heart. It is a shameful 
truth, that this important demand of the Gospel is almost 
entirely neglected in the denomination. Vital piety, a 
new heart, and a prayerful and holy life, as the first ob- 
ligation of the.Xew Testament, has but few advocates in 
the order." 

Again, Mr. G. says : " There is among us a contentious, 
wrangling, controversial spirit, which is certainly un- 
called for. There are multitudes professing a faith in 
Universalism who seem to think that they have performed 
their duty religiously by a boisterous defense of their 
faith in controversy, and by giving their orthodox neigh- 
bors a severe and unmerciful castigation. There is a 
notorious lack of public spirit in the denomination. The 
missionary cause, and that of education, is woefully disre- 
garded and neglected, and the true Catho.ic spirit is 



414 



Unitersalism not of the Bible. [Part IT 3 



a' most extinct among us. There is an unwillingness to 
make any sacrifice for the intellectual and spiritual 
improvement of others, and this is to be attributed to a 
want of vitality \ of deep religious feeling and devotional 
spirit among us." 

These extracts are taken from a June number of the 
" Gospel Banner 55 of 1849. This is not from an oppo- 
nent, but a voluntary confession of a friend and minister 
of the order, who would be interested to represent the 
matter in the most favorable light. Yet such was the 
corruption and irreligion in the denomination that he was 
obliged to speak out most truthfully. Mr. G. should 
become sensible of one more fact, namely : That these 
evil fruits are legitimate ; that Universalism is a bad 
tree, and can never bear good fruit. Its baneful influ- 
ence is the same to-day. Like causes produce like 
effects. 

ATe see in the light of these facts why it is that 
TJniversalist papers have contained so much scurrility 
against Christian denominations, and why the editors of 
the order have seized with so much avidity upon the 
real or supposed defections in the ministry and member- 
ship of Christian Churches, spreading them before the 
world to meet the cravings of their patrons. It is to 
pull others down on a level with themselves, in the pub- 
lic mind, that they do this. It answers as an apology 
for their own sins. 

The vastly superior numbers in all the Christian de- 
nominations over their own, both in the ministry and 
membership, afford them great advantage in collecting 
this offal. Facts could be given, were it necessary, con- 
cerning not a few of their ministers, which on a compar- 
ative view would place the order in no very enviable 
light. 

Take the following facts : The ministry of the Evan- 
gelical Churches in the country cannot be less than fifty- 



Sec. 135.] Univebsausm xot of the Bible. 



415 



eight thousand, while those of the Universalists (1872) 
number six hundred and twenty-six. (Sec. CXXVIII.) 
A few figures will show that, on a comparative view of 
numbers, for every individual case of immorality among 
the Universalist clergy there should be at least seventy - 
six among the Evangelical ministers to render it equal ! 
The same view may be taken of the respective member 
ships, only there is a far greater disparity in numbers 
here than in the ministry. A few years ago some of 
the leaders in the order became quite zealous in Church- 
forming, but the effort was looked upon with but little 
favor by the most of their people and some of their 
ministers ; for since all men are the dear children of 
God, why should such a division line be drawn between 
children of the same family? There was evidently too 
much partialism in the idea for well-instructed Univer- 
salists. (Sec. CXXXIIL) 

A significant fact concerning the success of the effort 
is seen in the absence from their yearly statistics of any 
report of numbers of Church-members till they are found 
in their "Register" of 1872, although the denomination 
dates back one hundred years ! 

A vast majority of the most zealous among them assume 
no Church responsibilities ; and when persons of this class 
commit deeds of wickedness, why then, forsooth, they 
were never Universalists ! Christians, acting in accord- 
ance with the Xew Testament, form Churches, extend 
their labors to the low and vicious as well as the moral, 
seek their conversion to God, and when conversion is 
professed gather them into Churches, and strive to throw 
around them those influences which have a tendency to 
keep them in the narrow way which leads to heaven. 
Thousands are thus saved to themselves, to their friends, 
and to the world for usefulness. Among those thus 
gathered may be some hypocrites, perhaps Universalists 
at heart, (Sec. CXXV,) or some may fall away and com- 



416 UNIVERSALIS^ NOT OF THE BlELE. [Part II, 



mit wicked deeds, and the Churches be obliged to expel 
them, and what then? Why, such cases are taken up 
and published in Universalist papers as the fruit of par- 
tialis m ! 

Taking into the account their paucity of numbers, and 
the very few who assume Church responsibilities, it will 
be seen that theirs is a mere Indian warfare with the 
armies of the living God. What a fine opportunity it 
would afford them to build up their people, not in holi- 
ness, but in hatred to others, if for every immoral minister 
among them seventy-six such were found in other denom- 
inations. Others, when a defection occurs, bring the 
offender to trial and suspend or expel, if found guilty, 
and by this it becomes more extensively known, and soon 
finds its way into Universalist and infidel papers. But 
Universalists are so charitable that some of their minis- 
ters, known to be guilty of immoral acts, continue to 
preach as though nothing had happened. To such an 
extent has this been carried that even Mr. Drew, some 
years ago, was compelled to utter his complaint as fol- 
lows : 

u We have seen too much of this false mercy — this real 
injustice — among Universalists. They have not dared 
to deal with their dishonest men lest the public should 
find out that they had bad men among them ! " — Ban- 
ner, Jem. 31, 1841. If Christians desired such food for 
a spiritual growth, and their ministers and editors were 
base enough to joyfully deal it out to them, a black list 
could easily be furnished, three to one in proportion, 
from the ranks of the Universalist ministry. Think of 
these facts, reader, when you chance to take up a Uni- 
versalist paper and see some doleful account of the 
" fruits of partialism." 

Modern Universalism has had its birth and being 
amid the largest religious freedom, and has used its 
license to the full extent, as the world knows. Its ad- 



Sec. 135.] UmVERSALISM XOT OF THE BlBLE. 



417 



Tocates have traveled, preached, and printed at their 
will. With great zeal they have explained their doc- 
trines, and caricatured evangelical sentiments. They 
have converted some to their views, and induced many 
to hate evangelical sentiments and operations, and yet 
"with all these advantages we find the wretched state of 
things described by the writers we have quoted. The 
cause of this is told in a few words, namely: Universal- 
ism is not of God. Its motives are not those which 
God has furnished to move the heart to penitence and 
piety. Preaching the love of God to sinners at the ex- 
pense of other revealed truths never did or can produce 
love to God in the heart. On the other hand, it will 
produce ir religion as surely as a constant presentation 
of the harsher truths in the abstract will produce fanati- 
cism. The world has witnessed an illustration of the 
former in Universalism, and of the latter in Millerism. 
It would have been well if the votaries of each of these 
delusions had heeded the words of Christ to the devil, 
where he says: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but 
by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of 
God." Matt, iv, 4. 

All the doctrines of revelation should have an influ- 
ence upon the heart to give it a proper religious balance. 
It is not a presentation of the abstract idea that God is 
love that produces love to God in the human heart. 
The sinner must first see his disease and danger, and 
with penitence and faith receive Christ as his Saviour, 
and then, and not till then, is the love of God produced 
in the heart; not by hearing that God is love, but by 
the Holy Ghost. Rom. v, 5. 

But it may be asked, If Universalism is thus baneful 
in its influence, how is it that some respectable men are 
found in the denomination? We answer : That they are 
so upon the same principle that some, who openly pro- 
fess infidelity, are persons of many good qualities, in 

27 



418 



Univeksalism not of the Bible. [Part II, 



many respects good citizens and kind neighbors. We 
are all aware that there are some such infidels, yet no 
Christian thinks of attributing these good qualities of 
theirs to infidelity, but they possess them in spite of in- 
fidelity. Notwithstanding their hatred to Christianity, 
they are greatly indebted to it for its molding and 
elevating influence upon their own character. If their 
birth and education had been in a heathen land, they 
would doubtless have been as debased as millions now 
are who possess minds naturally as good as their own. 
Now these respectable Universalists occupy the same 
position in respect to true Christianity. Many of them 
are children of praying parents, and all have had the 
advantages of a general Christian influence and instruc- 
tion, and were the same respectable men before they had 
any connection with Universalism, and some of them 
still retain this character in spite of Universalism and 
their opposition to truth. This system had no agency in 
giving them this character. It is a fact, too, that not 
a few of this class are not aware of all the absurdities 
which must be believed, and all the truth which must be 
rejected, in order to be a consistent modern Universalist. 

CXXXVI. The bugbear of insanity and suicide, caused, 
as they say, by the doctrine of endless punishment, is 
an important matter to be kept before their people by 
Universalist editors. 

" The occasions of insanity are various as the numer- 
ous subjects which claim the attention of the mind. In 
most cases the cause, near or remote, is in the constitu- 
tion, latent until revealed by some casual circumstance, 
which imparts a sudden or unusual excitement to the 
mind. In very many instances the direct occasion is 
known to be a hereditary predisposition to insanity, 
which is almost sure to show itself at a particular stage 
of mental development under all circumstances. In 



Sec. 136.] Univeksalism not of the Bible. 



419 



general, any subject which attracts attention, and excites 
the mind beyond what is consistent with health of body 
or mind, tends to destroy the harmony of the mind and 
produce insanity. In some countries cases of insanity 
are much more numerous than in others. Climate, diet, 
and customs become inducing causes by the influence 
they exert over physical and mental developments. The 
exciting cause of insanity, in a great majority of cases, 
are either of a business character, or arise from sadden 
and calamitous change, of one kind or another, in 
worldly circumstances or prospects. Recent investiga- 
tions of this subject in Paris confirm these remarks, and 
so does the last report from our own State (New York) 
Asylum. Out of sixteen hundred and nine cases, only 
one hundred and fifty-two are put down as occasioned 
by £ religious anxiety, 5 leaving fifteen hundred and fifty- 
seven to be referred to other causes. Out of fifty pro- 
fessional men affected with insanity only eight were 
clergymen. That religious anxiety does in some cases 
lead to insanity I have no disposition to deny; but this 
fact is no argument against the causes of this anxiety. 
To suppose it is would compel us to condemn all mental 
discipline, and all business transactions, because the 
anxieties and perplexities connected with such pursuits 
are sometimes inducing causes of insanity. Moreover, I 
wish you to mark and remember, that for every single 
case of insanity produced by those religious feelings 
which arise out of evangelical views of Christianity, we 
may safely calculate upon the preservation of two 
from that affliction by the salutary and conservative in- 
fluence of that same religion. By far the greater amount 
of insanity is among the irreligious and depraved. In 
bo far as they are brought under the influence and power 
of evangelical religion are they reformed and preserved 
from those habits of dissipation, and acts of dishonesty 
and wild sneculations in business, which lead to so many 



420 Universalis:*! not or the Bible. [Part IT, 



catastrophes, and become the inducing cause of insanity. 
This subject is beginning to be understood by those who 
have charge of the insane, who are recommending the 
exercises and motives of religion as a means of restora- 
tion. The Christian religion is founded on the revealed 
character of an infinite God, and is therefore adapted 
and intended to call into exercise the highest powers of 
the human mind. A religion incapable of interesting 
the mind, or exciting it to an extent that might, under 
some circumstances, induce insanity, would, in my hum- 
ble judgment, be unworthy the attention of intelligent 
beings." — Rev. D. Holmes. 

But how does it happen that so many who have been 
deluded by the spirit rappers become insane and com- 
mit some most horrid suicides, when they are assured by 
the good Universalist and infidel managers that the 
spirits declare that there is no hell? Surely, endless 
punishment is not the cause of this. Why do Univer- 
salists become insane, and why do they commit suicide ? 
Why did A. V. Bassett, a Universalist minister in Ded- 
ham, Mass., commit suicide by cutting his throat a few 
years since ? Was partialism the cause ? Why did 
young Crawford hang himself in the jail at Lowell? 
Was partialism the cause of this ? Did he believe that 
an endless hell awaited him in the future ? Xo man 
with such a belief, possessing as sane a mind as the let- 
ters left by Crawford evinced, could have committed 
suicide. This act was a most cool and deliberate one. 
We learn from an article published in a Lowell paper at 
the time that Crawford had been educated a Universal- 
ist, that his parents were of that faith, and that his father 
was very zealous in the cause. Crawford had connected 
himself with a gang of counterfeiters, was detected in 
the business, and confined in jail to await his trial, which 
would have taken place in June, 1S40. Knowing the 
evidence of his guilt was such that he could not escape 



SeC. 136.] UXIYERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



421 



the State-prison, lie resolved on committing suicide. He 
wrote one letter to a man respecting his business, and 
another to his mother, assigning the reason for commit- 
ting the fatal deed, as follows : 

" He had got into trouble — and trouble for life — and 
he thought he would get out of trouble the shortest 
way." "He bade his friends farewell till they should 
meet in an unknown world, where parting was not 
known." 

Now, as horrid as it is, we contend that Crawford 
reasoned like a philosopher, and acted a most consistent 
part, believing as he did. . Why, we ask, should a man 
suffer in the State-prison, and then the ignominy 
and disgrace all his life of having been there, when 
heavenly bliss is so near him that a piece of rope, the 
razor, or the pistol, will give him a sure transition thither 
in a few moments? Young Crawford showed that he 
possessed no slavish fear of his heavenly Father. He 
evinced, too, his faith by his works, and this act calls 
loudly upon those who are of like faith to go and do 
likewise, and take as many more with them as possible, 
especially if they are in trouble, and thus show their 
philanthropy and benevolence ! 

A few years since a Baptist minister in Maine was 
deluded into a belief of Universalism, and on a day he 
gave his reasons for renouncing his former belief and 
embracing his new opinions. This was a great day with 
the Universalists in that region, and they listened to his 
story most joyfully. But a short time elapsed, however, 
before the poor man, availing himself of the privilege 
of a Universalist, committed suicide by hanging, and 
thus evinced his faith by his works. A minister of the 
right stamp for such an occasion was employed for the 
funeral, and the audience listened to the stale perversion 
of, " For he that is dead is freed from sin." Rom. vi 5 7. 
(Sec. VI.) 



422 



Universalis^! not of the Bible. [Part II, 



Is it said that the man was insane ? This act is not 
to be taken as evidence of it if Universalism is true. Is 
it not rational to .escape all evil, and secure the greatest 
amount of permanent good possible? Does not the 
suicide do this if Universalism is the truth ? Most 
certainly he does. Is it still contended that he was in- 
sane ? But how could that have been when he so firmly 
believed Universalism ? Does Universalism produce in- 
sanity ? The leaders in the order would do well to be 
looking into this. This case occurred in Harmony, 
Maine. 

To show the influence in aid of suicide we present 
two cases more. Charles Emerson, a man about thirty 
years of age, committed suicide by taking strychnine at 
the American House, in Boston, leaving the following 
letter on the table in his room : 

"American House, April 11, 1872. 
Dear Father and Mother: Life is a burden to me which I am 
about to cast off. Death has not the terrors for me that life lias. 
Universalism, always precious to me, is doubly so now. Forgive all 
I have ever done to grieve you. Tour loving son, Charlie." 

We take this from a Boston paper, " The Daily News," 
April 13, 1872. Observe, " Universalism, always precions 
to me, is doubly so now,' 5 and why ? Because he had been 
taught that, no matter what his life, or how he died, 
whether in taking the life of another or his own, he 
should in the next world be as the angels of God in 
heaven. 

In the Boston "Herald" of June 7, 1872, we find an 
account of the suicide of an actress, by taking morphine, 
in the Union Depot Hotel of Pittsburgh. She seems to 
have been in love with the agent of a traveling theater. 
She left in a note-book the following : " I have gone to 
rest. You shall never see me again, for I am in a hap- 
pier land than you. I could not live any longer, for I 
would die with grief to know that I love the man that 



SeC. 136.] UNIVERSALIS^ XOT OF THE BlBLE. 



423 



does not love me, and so I had to make an end with me. 
Better to die quiet than to die of grief and trouble. 
You will never see me again in this world ; but you 
will see me in another world, and that world is heaven." 

Xow, who encouraged this woman with the idea that 
she and the wicked object of her affections should meet 
again in heaven if she committed suicide ? The Bible 
teaches no such doctrine, and, of course, evangelical 
ministers give no such instruction. The delusive idea 
cherished by this poor woman came from Universalism, 
as all will see. According; to this dogma, if indeed 
Universalists will admit that suicide is a sin, (Sec. CXII,) 
she had been prepunished for this last act of wickedness. 
Both forms of Universalism now in vogue teach that all 
the sins of this life are fully punished here, and that 
all who die in acts of wickedness were punished for that 
last sin beforehand, (Sec. CXL.) Thus the Divine gov- 
ernment becomes a debtor to the sinner, and the last 
wicked act, which ends in death, having been settled for, 
the man who takes his own life has the right to fling open 
the door himself by suicide and rush into heaven ! Such 
is Universalist theology A. D. 1872. 

For the sake of surviving friends we would say noth- 
ing of such cases as we have named were it not to 
show^ that modern Universalism, when sincerely embraced, 
leads directly to suicide, especially when earthly hopes 
are blasted or comforts destroyed. 

The editors in the order are cruelly reckless of the 
feelings of friends when they can in any way turn a 
suicide against future punishment. They iterate and 
reiterate such cases with all the recklessness of misan- 
thropes. Were other editors equally reckless they could 
present an astonishing array of suicides committed by 
those who had no fear of the future. 

Suicides are common in France. It is estimated that 
there are between three and four thousand a year. The 



424 Universalis*! not of the Bible. [Part II, 



cause assigned by a writer in the 4 ' Xew York Observer " 
is Materialism. A great portion of the French people 
look upon man as a machine — to run for a while — and 
that death is an eternal sleep. The thought of suicide 
enters into their business calculations and misfortune ; a 
little trouble or disgrace carries them out of the world 
by their own hands. There is nothing to fear from an- 
nihilation. A nonentity cannot suffer. Suppose that we 
substitute for these views, so common in France, the 
idea that at death the soul will " assume its spiritual 
body and live as an immortal," could we expect suicides 
would be any less frequent among them '? 

After ail the hatred to evangelical doctrines, and clamor 
for Universalism, we conclude that there are but few to 
be found among them who have not their fears, in their 
thoughtful moments, that positive punishment awaits the 
sinner beyond the grave, and that the Church, gener- 
ally, may have been right for eighteen hundred years 
past, while they have been mistaken. In this way, and 
this only, can we account for the great desire of life on 
the part of I_ mi verbalists, even though some of them are 
extremely wretched here. 

The Christian believes that deliberate suicide would 
shut his soul out of heaven and consign it to unutterable 
woe, and under its influence he never would commit the 
deed. 

But Universalism, in both of its present forms, says 
deliberate suicide shuts no man out of heaven. Death 
brings the resurrection which elevates all men to glory ! 

One thought more. Such is the disparity of numbers, 
that for every Universalist minister that becomes insane, 
there should be at least seventy-six believers in future 
punishment afflicted in the same way to make it equal; 
and so with suicides. What a shout would ring through 
the Universalist camp if seventy-six evangelical ministers 
were to commit suicide on the same day ; but this would 



Sec. 137.] U^iversaxism not oe the Bible. 425 



be no more in proportion than for one Universalist minis- 
ter to die by his own hands on that day. (Sec. CXXXV.) 
If there is any argument in the simple fact that believers 
in future punishment sometimes become insane or com- 
mit suicide, that argument lies with equal force against 
Universalism, since some of its votaries are found in the 
same condition and do the same thing. Religious men 
sometimes become insane when their religion has noth- 
ing to do with producing it, as every well-informed 
man knows. 

CXXXVII. Much has been written by Universalists 
to show that endless punishment cannot be reconciled 
with the love of God, and much has been written by- 
Atheists to prove that present evil is inconsistent with 
the idea of an infinitely perfect Being ; and the arguments 
of the last-named class are of equal force with those of 
the first. It by no means follows that because some 
things appear to us unreasonable, that, therefore, they 
are so in themselves or in their relations. Tell a savage 
of the wonders of the magnetic telegraph, and, left simply 
to his reason, he would exclaim, I cannot believe it, for 
it is unreasonable ! But let him become assured of- the 
superior information and strict veracity of his informer, 
and, relying upon his word, he would believe the fact, 
although his reason could not compass the manner of its 
existence or its mode of operations. This faintly illus- 
trates the relation of man's reason to the revelation and 
ways of God. We say faintly, for while there is a vast 
difference between an enlightened mind and the mind of 
a savage, there is, between the greatest mind of man and 
the mind of the all-wise God, an infinitely greater dis- 
parity ; hence, what may appear perfectly reasonable to 
his mind may appear unreasonable to man. Reason is 
to be employed in religion to learn what God has re- 
vealed, and not to dictate what God must reveal. The 



426 



TjXIVEESALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part IT, 



sincere believer in the Bible relies upon the superior 
knowledge and strict veracity of its Author, and there- 
fore admits the existence of facts, when revealed, the 
mode and relations of which he cannot fully understand. 
Some things may be far beyond human reason, but not 
contrary to right reason. God has endued man with 
only a portion of that reason which he possesses in abso- 
lute perfection. The great fault with Universalists is, 
that while they have professed deference for the Bible, 
they have ever practiced upon rationalistic principles. 
(Sees. XCVII, CXVII.) They first assume what is 
reasonable, according to their limited conception of 
things, in the government of God, and then, not to be 
considered infidels outright, they bring the Bible, twisted 
into all manner of shapes, to sustain their theories. We 
believe that endless punishment harmonizes with the 
love of God because they are both revealed, and the 
believer in the Bible need go no further. We believe, 
also, that sin and present misery harmonize with the love 
of God. But had we no knowledge of their existence 
we could never, by reasoning from the attributes of God, 
come to the conclusion that they do exist ; much less 
could we harmonize their existence with the love of God. 
The Bible reveals the love of God, and matter of fact 
teaches us the sad lesson that human misery is widely 
extended. To say that this vast amount of human suf- 
fering is to secure a greater amount of good to man in 
the end does not help the matter, as may be seen Sec. 
CIII and CXIII. 

CXXXVIII. A striking evidence of the antagonism 
of Universalism to the Bible is seen in the frequent ex- 
planations its advocates are obliged to give of numerous 
portions of Scripture to keep their people in any thing 
like a believing trim. Common sense often rebels, and 
the text explained does not remain explained. Xo class 



Sec. 138.] Univeesausm not of the Bible. 



427 



of men are called upon for explanations of Scripture so 
often, according to their own account, as Universalist 
ministers and editors. It is quite amusing to look over 
files of the " Trumpet," in our possession, for eleven 
years, and see how often the same text is explained. 
Some member of a Christian Church desires to become a 
Universalist if he can, and a text must be cleared away 
for his benefit; or some disciple is in doubt, and some- 
thing must be done for him ; or some believer in eternal 
punishment has sent a poser to the editor, and that must 
be attended to. This afforded Mr. Whittemore, with 
some show of reason, an opportunity of publishing his 
stale stereotyped arguments and perversions again and 
again. Xo ministers have so many texts selected for 
them — none meet with so many inquirers after truth. 
A minister receives a request through the post-office; it 
may be written by himself, to give his views of a certain 
Scripture ; and who can blame him now if he lets go a 
whole broadside against the Partialists ! Who can blame 
him if he gives the old rigmarole upon Sheol^ Hades, 
and Gehenna f That some of these letters are written 
upon the editor's table or in the minister's study we 
have no reason to doubt, for priestcraft is not confined 
to the Romish clergy; but that they have many inquir- 
ers who find it impossible to harmonize the views they 
cherish with the Bible is also true. It is this difficulty 
with the Bible which brings forth such a great amount 
of doctrinal matter in their periodicals and book<. You 
can seldom take up a number of some of their leading- 
papers without finding in it a doctrinal essay or sermon, 
to say nothing of other baseless arguments mid clap- 
trap paragraphs thrown in by the editor and others. 
Then look at the great number of their doctrinal books. 
In proportion to their numbers, they have doubtless ten 
times more doctrinal matter afloat than any evangelical 
denomination in our country. Xo sect that we know of 



428 



UNIVERSALIS^ NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part II, 



has as much in proportion, unless we except the annihila- 
tionists. They seem to be subjected to about the same 
amount of labor to keep their people in a believing state. 
Evangelical Christians are not under the necessity of 
constantly repeating their arguments in proof of their 
doctrine, or in opposition to Universalism ; neither are 
their editors often catechized concerning troublesome 
texts. Now why is this ? Is it because their people do 
not study the Bible, or are indifferent to what it teaches ? 
By no means. It is because they confide in the Bible, 
having no doubt concerning the meaning of those pas- 
sages used to sustain their doctrine. This great labor 
of Universalists to prove their doctrines reminds us of 
a boy we knew at school who was a notorious liar, and 
seemed to feel obliged to repeat a statement several 
times with great vehemence in order to be believed. 
Indeed, such is the vast labor required to make Univer- 
salism even plausible from the Scriptures, that its ad- 
vocates can find time for but little else save to prove 
their doctrine and help the numerous doubting ones. 

CXXXIX. The advocates of Universalism boast much 
of the superior moral influence of their system because 
of the better view it presents of God, and it is assumed 
that our views of God's penalties are productive oi 
revenge, cruelty, and bloodshed among men ; for, say 
they, if God punishes when it is not for the good of thv 
sufferer, then it is right for man to do the same, as he is 
certainly at liberty to imitate his God ; or, in other 
words, man may treat an offending fellow-man as God 
treat s an offending creature of his. Xowhere is a great 
fallacy put forth and elaborated by the whole tribe of 
Universalist advocates in some form or other. The 
truth is, we are not at liberty to even attempt to imitate 
God in every thing ; for we are to learn our duty, as 
dependent creatures, not so much from what God a 7 oes 3 



SCC. 139.] UxiVERSALTSM NOT OF THE BlJBLE. 429 



as from what he says. The fallacy of this argument is 
seen in the fact that the Supreme does not stand in the 
same relation to man that one mortal stands in to 
another; as the relation differs, so must the conduct 
differ. God has given us a written revelation to guide 
us. This points out most clearly our duty to God and 
man ; and if some men have taken vengeance into their 
own hands with the idea that they have, a right to imi- 
tate God, it is no proof that the idea of vengeance in the 
Divine administration is false, but only shows that such 
have mistaken their rule of duty. God demands, and 
has a right so to do, that his creatures worship him ; hut 
has any man a right, in imitation of God, to claim wor- 
ship from his fellow-men ? Certainly not. Man- worship 
has obtained in the Romish Church; but is this to be 
brought as argument against the doctrine that God is 
to be worshiped ? As well might Universalists do this 
as to urge the cruelties of wicked men against endless 
punishment. It will not be contended that the French 
Atheists were under the influence of this doctrine, for 
they hated it as ardently as our Universalists do ; but 
the world has witnessed their fierce cruelty and blood- 
shed, and thousands who clamor against endless punish- 
ment in our time have hearts no better than theirs. 
The origin of cruelty is found in the depraved nature 
of man ; and under certain circumstances, whatever his 
doctrinal views, he will be heartless and cruel. The 
love of God shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost 
can remove the difficulty. But the heart can never be 
improved by cherishing a hatred to God*s penalties. 
Cruelty and persecution, it is said, grow legitimately 
out of the doctrine of endless punishment, because men 
will imitate their God. This is precisely the argument 
of the French Atheists against the being of a God. He 
is the Sovereign of the universe. All the sovereignties 
of the earth grow out of the idea of a sovereign above, 



430 IJXIYERSALISM NOT 03? THE BlBLE. [Part II, 



and as nature teaches equality, the idea of a king above 
must be banished from the minds of the people before 
earthly thrones :an be destroyed. This was their argu- 
ment, and it is just as forcible against the sovereignty 
of God as the Universalist argument we are considering 
is against endless punishment. We are not prepared, 
however, to deny the doctrine of Divine sovereignty 
because there is king-craft upon earth. 

The Scriptures speak of God's executing vengeance, 
which is the opposite of good. Take the following : 
" Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give 
place unto wrath : for it is written, Vengeance is mine ; 
I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy 
hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, give him drink ; for in so 
doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be 
not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." 
Rom. xii, 19-21. Here man is prohibited the right of 
taking vengeance . m an enemy, and the reason assigned 
is that it is God's prerogative. God executes vengeance; 
but as man does not hold the same relation to his fellow- 
man that God holds to man as his lawgiver and Judge, 
he may not imitate God in avenging himself. Man 
must seek to overcome evil with good ; but God, instead 
of overcoming evil with good, will execute vengeance ; 
and thus we see that vengeance in the passage stands 
opposed to good, for " Vengeance is mine.; I will repay, 
saith the Lord." In the light of this we see the sophis- 
try of that question so often and artfully put by Univer- 
salists, namely : " If God requires us to overcome evil 
with good, will he not do the same for all his creatures ?" 
Is it said that' the term vengeance is not to be understood 
in a harsh sense, but in the sense of a disciplinary pun- 
ishment for the good of the sufferer ? This view reduces 
the text to a senseless mass of contradiction. It makes 
the apostle say, 44 Dearly beloved, do no good unto your 
enemies ; for it is written, Good is mine ; I will do them 



SeC. 140.] UjSTVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



431 



good, saith the Lord ; therefore, my brethren, overcome 
evil with good." Attach the sense to " vengeance " that 
Universalis ts do, and all must see that this is a correct 
paraphrase, as absurd as it is. AYe see that the term 
must be understood as expressing a positive evil in op- 
position to good. 

Did space admit, it might be shown that the severe 
punishments recorded in the Bible, such as those upon 
the Sodomites and others, are liable to the same objec- 
tion we have been considering ; for were these acts of 
God extensively imitated by his creatures great cruelty 
must be the result. Not that God was cruel in destroy- 
ing the Sodomites, but it would be cruel in men to burn 
their fellow-men with fire and brimstone because they 
are not at liberty to imitate God in such a work for rea- 
sons already given. 

CXL. What do Universalists now believe concerning 
the future state ? In this section we propose, from their 
own approved authors, to answer this question. There 
lies before us two volumes, one entitled u Gospel Doc- 
trines for Sabbath-Schools, by W. R. French," the other, 
" Universalism ; its Doctrines and their Foundations, 
by Rev. L. J. Fletcher." These are issued from the 
Universalist Publishing House, Boston, designed to in- 
doctrinate the children and youth of Universalist Sab- 
bath-schools, and are approved by the order generally, 
as the man in attendance stated when we purchased the 
books. In the last-named work the author raises this 
question, " How is that sinner to be made happy in a 
future life who dies unrepentant, as did the unbelieving 
Jews, upon whom came a speedy and terrible destruc- 
tion ? How is such a one to be among the saved in the 
spirit-world ? " He answers : 

u There are two theories put forth by Universalists 
touching this subject, and each finds its advocates. 



432 



UnIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Pail II, 



The question is answered by both of them, and it is 
proper that they should both receive attention in this 
place. The early fathers of Universal ism, so-called, or 
those who first bore the name, did mostly believe as fol- 
lows, to wit : 

" The sinner is punished in the present life for all 
the sins of this life. He is justly and fully pun- 
ished ; and if so, God being just in all his ways, that 
which is here received will be the sinner's only punish- 
ment."— P. 174. 

Speaking of the doctrine of the fathers, Mr. Fletcher 
says : 

" The sin of the crucifixion, according to this theory, 
was punished in those transgressions that preceded it 
and prepared the Jews for it, the same as the last des- 
perate act of the drunkard is punished in those preceding- 
acts which make him a drunkard, and prepare him to 
commit a crime of which, at the time of its commission, 
he can have no adequate conception. St. Paul said, 
' Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to 
judgment ; and some men they follow after,' (1 Tim. v, 
24 ;) and this passage seems to refer to the subject under 
consideration, and to be an authority sanctioning the 
common-sense view of punishment herein set forth. We 
suppose that nearly all intelligent Universalists of the 
present as well as the past agree substantially in this 
view of punishment for sin." — P. 177. 

Again, this author says, " So far as we know, with 
very few exceptions, Universalists believe that all posi- 
tive punishment for sin is inflicted in this life ; and to 
the question aforesaid, namely, When or how is the sin- 
ner punished who dies in his sins — who dies, perhaps, 
after having just committed a fearful crime — we are 
agreed in saying that he was punished all the way of his 
transgression, in every act by which he made himself 
still more depraved, and prepared himself for the latest 



Sec. 140.] Universalis^ not of the Bible. 



433 



and most appalling crimes. We are also agreed in say- 
ing that such a sinner will be saved in the future life." 
—P. 178. 

Again, he says : " We all believe that in the resur- 
rection all men will become ' as the angels of God 
in heaven ; ' that is, that all will be immortal and 
wholly free from the passions and lusts of the flesh, and 
therefore that he who dies impenitent enjoys this salva- 
tion in common with all others for whom Christ died." 
—P. 185. 

Concerning their disagreement Mr. F. says : " But we 
are not agreed in saying that such a one will be as well 
prepared for the immortal state, and stand as high in 
the scale of spiritual existence, as one who, in this world, 
had loved his fellow-men, obeyed the law of his God, 
and died with devout prayer or Christian praises on his 
lips." " We are not agreed in saying that such a resur- 
rected spirit is as holy and happy as that other soul 
who, through much striving and prayer, lived near to 
Jesus in this world." — P. 186. 

Of those who are of this belief in the order he says : 
" They conclude that if punishment suffered in this life 
does not bring the sinner to repentance, then will the 
same love which commenced the chastisement for the 
purpose of reform continue it until the end of punish- 
ment is realized in the peaceable fruits of righteousness." 
— P. 189. "He scourges because he loves, and he will 
therefore continue to scourge until the object of punish- 
ment is realized in the reformation of the offender."— 
P. 188. 

Again : " We shall be the same in all our moral quali- 
ties when we enter the future life as when we leave this. 
We shall be free from the flesh and its lusts ; but the 
spirit will exhibit its identity of positive excellences 
there as here." — P. 199. " Death does not exalt us into 
any new excellency of spirit ; but it places us in a state 

28 



434 UxiVEKSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part IT, 



where such excellences can be more easily and certainly 
attained." — P. 191. 

Here we have the two systems of belief in the 
Universaiist denomination. One has been styled the 
Death-and-Glory " system, the other the " Progress- 
ive." But may not the title of death and glory be right- 
fully applied to both ? Let us see. In the other work, 
designed for children, by Mr. French, we find the follow- 
ing catechism : 

" Q> What now is the resurrection ? 

" A. The spirit's entrance upon this new mode of 
being. 

" Q. At what time does it take place ? 

"A. Probably at the moment of death." — P. 90. 

Again, the child is made to say : 

" I learn to believe ... in the resurrection from the 
dead : that is, at death my soul will be disengaged 
from my material body, and raised up in a spiritual 
body, that it may grow and act its freedom in the world 
of spirits."— P. 102, 

" Q. Will the opportunity of a right choice be denied 
the soul after it enters the world of spirits ? 

" A. The relations of the human spirit to God, the 
Divine Spirit, are not changed by death. Wherever and 
whenever the soul heartily repents and turns to God. he 
will mercifully hear and bless." — P. 103. 

Xow, if the resurrection occurs at death, and if the 
apostle's words, as Universalists assert, in 1 Cor. xv, 43, 
" it is raised in glory," apply to all the race, is not the 
doctrine of the progressionists just as really death-and- 
glory doctrine as that of the older school of Universal- 
ists ? It certainly is, as all must see. 

By the fathers named in the above extracts Mr. 
Fletcher does not refer to Winchester, Murray, Hunting- 
don, and others of their time, but to Ballou. Whitte- 
more, Cobb, and others who succeeded Murray, who, to 



Sec. 140.] Universausm xot of the Bible. 



435 



use a political phrase, took a e< new departure " some 
fifty or more years ago. TTe know that Universalists 
now call John Murray "Father" But they hold noth- 
ing in common with him save the one idea that all will 
by some means be saved at last. His God is not their 
God, for he was a Trinitarian. His Christ is not their 
Christ ; his atonement is not their atonement ; his pun- 
ishment for sin is not their punishment ; his forgiveness 
is not their forgiveness ; his resurrection is not their 
resurrection; and his judgment is not their judgment. 
All this it were easy to show, could space be afforded, 
from documents before us. Yet the modern school call 
him " Father" and garnish his sepulcher ! Were he to 
appear on earth to-day, preaching the doctrine of the 
Trinity, vicarious sufferings, and a future judgment, how 
would he be received by Universalists ? They would 
cast him out of the synagogue. 

From the statement of Mr. Fletcher we see that there 
are two classes among Universalists. One class receive 
the doctrines of the fathers, that is, the doctrines of 
Messrs. Ballou and TThitteniore. By examining their 
catalogue we find that almost the entire force of their 
standard theological books, as well as their doctrinal 
tracts, favor the doctrines of these fathers. These pro- 
ductions are commended and circulated by their minis- 
ters and read by the people. But what great difference 
is there between them and the later school ? Did they 
deny the supreme divinity of Christ and his vicarious 
atonement ? Do not the progressionists scornfully re- 
ject these doctrines ? Did they teach that all positive 
punishment for sin is inflicted in this life ? Mr. F. as- 
serts that, with very few exceptions, Universalists be- 
lieve this doctrine now. Did the fathers teach the im- 
possibility of sinning enough to incur any more punish- 
ment than should be for the sinner's good ? All agree 
in this. Did the fathers teach that none are saved from 



436 



Univeesalism not or the Bible. [Part II, 



deserved punishment either on account of the Saviour's 
death or the sinner's penitence, or by pardon, forgive- 
ness, or remission of sins ? (Sec. LXX.) . In this the 
fathers and children agree. Did the fathers deny the 
doctrine of a literal resurrection ? The children, with 
mucli uniformity, do the same. Did some of the fathers, 
years ago, (Sec. LXXXIX,) teach that the resurrection 
takes place at death by the spirit's being disengaged 
from the flesh ? This, the extracts we have given show, 
is the doctrine of to-day. Did the fathers reject the 
doctrine of a future judgment ? Are not all Universal- 
is ts agreed in rejecting it now ? Did the fathers teach 
that all men will be raised in glory ? The extracts 
given show that the progressionists teach the same now. 
Did the fathers teach that men are prepunished who die 
in acts of wickedness ? Mr. Fletcher, informs us that 
" all intelligent Universalists of the present as well as 
the past " substantially agree in this. 

Thus we see that there is not a' wide difference be- 
tween the two theories, and we conclude that the 
future punishment taught by one is not considered any 
thing very terrific by the other, for if so they would 
not fraternize as cordially as they do. An appeal to 
the fears of men in respect to the future world has 
heretofore, been very offensive to Universalists. fSec. 
LXIX.) 

The attention of the reader is now called to the dis- 
tinguishing doctrines of the new school. It will be seen 
by what has been presented that both theories agree in 
this, namely, that death ushers all men into the resur- 
rection state. The chief difference lies here : the old 
theory declared that our conduct here could not affect 
our future state, and that " the resurrection state is one 
of equality." The new teaches that while the wicked 
are fully punished here for the' sins of this life, they will, 
as a consequence of their sins, enter the resurrection 



SeC. 140.] IT^ITERSALISM NOT OF TRE BlBLE. 437 

state under disabilities, standing lower in the scale of 
sjDiritual existence than the good, and that the same dis- 
cipline which had been used upon them here will be 
continued there until they arrive at perfection. Ob- 
serve, it is asserted that in the resurrection all will be as 
the angels, being immortal and freed from the passions 
nnd lusts of the flesh, and that all who die shall enjoy 
this salvation. It is also stated that " we shall be the 
same in all our moral qualities when we enter the future 
life as when we leave this ; . . . death does not exalt 
us into any new excellence of spirit." All that is done 
by death places us in a state more favorable and certain 
of reform than in the disciplinary process under the 
Gospel in this world. As we have seen, Mr. French 
teaches the children that by death the " mode of being 
is changed," and that the resurrection is " the spirit's 
entrance upon this new mode of being ; " that at death 
the soul will be disengaged from the " natural body, and 
raised into a spiritual body, that it may grow and act 
its freedom in the world of spirits." But Mr. Thayer, 
(" Theo. of TJ.,") in his section on " Death — Resurrection 
— Salvation," does not say that the resurrection is the 
spirit's entrance upon this new mode of being. His 
idea is, if we can understand him, that death liberat- 
ing the spirit from the flesh, the resurrection begins^ 
and the reform goes on by Christ as Guide, Teacher, 
and Redeemer, till " the resurrection is completed." 
—P. 227. 

Speaking of the resurrection as a whole, we are told that 
its consummation will be reached when " Christ shall 
have delivered up the kingdom to God even the Father." 
But how is it with individuals in this process of purga- 
tion ? How long will one be subject to such discipline 
before he will become fully raised in glory ? Has Cain 
been working up under instruction and stripes for six thou- 
sand years, or has he long ago become as the angels ? 



438 



Uniyersalism not of the Bible. [Part IT, 



Again, is it not possible that some may go down as well 
as up in the future, since they are moral agents there ? 
Those who can override the Bible with their speculations 
w T ith the confidence of these men ought to be able to 
answer these questions, and let mortals know just what 
they may expect concerning the length of time as well 
as other matters. Mr. Thayer seems to avoid the use of 
the word " punishment " in connection with his ri sing 
process. But Mr. Fletcher is clear in his expression of 
it ; but he softens the thing down so that the old incor- 
rigibles need not be much offended or frightened by it. 
He says, " We have already shown that we cannot judge 
of the future life by the present life ; for here we are 
subject to the temptations and lusts of the flesh, while 
there the spirit will be free from such influences, so that 
punishment there may produce its speedy, almost imme- 
diate results." — P. 190. This, if not a very wholesome 
doctrine, must be one very full of comfort to depraved 
minds. It virtually says to such, " Take courage. Ripen 
up in iniquity, break down your physical nature, or, if 
impatient, take a nearer route— commit suicide, and 
throw yourself at once into a greatly improved condition, 
where a few loving stripes from your heavenly Father 
may produce their " speedy, almost immediate results" 
namely, your perfect bliss ! Mr. Thayer tells us how 
Christ is to save men after death. It is, he says, u By 
the same means and in the same way as before death, 
doubtless, only increased in power and directness, and 
operating without obstructions incident to the flesh, or 
earthly nature." — P. 229. Now, what are the means by 
which men are saved before death ? The Gospel " is 
the power of God unto salvation " here. Christ sent 
out ministers to preach and administer his sacraments. 
Are ministers sent out and do the spirits listen to the 
Gospel in the process of rising ? Have the progression- 
ists gone back to the doctrines of the old restorationists 



Sec. 140.] Univeesalism not of the Bible. 



439 



in which they taught that the Gospel would be preached 
to the spirits in hell for their recovery ? This cannot 
be, for w T e are told that the vilest who die find them- 
selves in greatly improved circumstances by being freed 
from the flesh. What authority has Mr. Thayer for 
saying that men will be saved " by the same means and 
in the same way " after death as they are before ? Just 
none at all. It is a mere speculation. It is human 
philosophy, and poor at that. Another means, accord- 
ing to Universalism, is punishment. All punishment 
here is for the sinner's good. There will be punishment, 
then, in the spirit-world. This Mr. Fletcher asserts. 
Punishment implies sin, for God does not punish men 
for mere infirmities. It implies also moral agency. In- 
deed, men must be moral agents, for, says Mr. Fletcher, 
"We shall be the same in all our moral qualities when 
we enter the future life as when we leave this," and he 
also states that the future life will begin " from the ex- 
act moral stand-point where this life shall end."- — Pp. 
197, 198. Now, if men are capable of sinning in the 
resurrection state, they have the power not only to ac- 
cept but to refuse the conditions of salvation there; and 
having such power, they may continue rebellious forever, 
notwithstanding the stripes and entreaties employed, 
and if so, it renders endless sinning and punishment pos- 
sible, which upsets one of the prominent pillars of Uni- 
versalism, namely, the argument built upon the attributes 
of God against the possibility of endless punishment. 
Thus this resurrection punishment teaches the possibil- 
ity of an endless hell! Observe, it is not only those 
who die in acts of wickedness but the good as well who 
need this purgatory, for Mr. Thayer says, " The simple 
truth is, all men are saved in a greater or less degree 
after death. This spiritual change of the resurrection 
is necessary to the completeness and happiness of every 
soul." — P. 229, 



440 



UXIVEKSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. [Part II, 



Again he says : 

" The character we form in this life we carry with us 
into the other." — P. 230. So all grades of character 
must go through this purgatory of Universalism ! Some 
of the old Universalists taught that all sin pertained to 
the flesh, that the soul was pure, and that when relieved 
of the flesh there would be no more trouble. But some 
of the children have discovered that the soul now has 
something to do with sin, hence the necessity of the 
resurrection purgatory to get it into heaven. If our 
friends on earth are in trouble by their own sins, or 
other causes, is it not a Christian duty to pray for 
them ? and since they are to be saved by " the same 
means and in the same way in the spirit- world," ought 
we not to pray that the Gospel preached to them and 
the punishment inflicted may prove effectual in their 
more speedy salvation ? If Universalist theology is 
sound, the Romish Church should no longer be denounced 
for offering prayers for the departed, for millions who 
have carried the same character there that they had on 
earth, as is asserted, must be in a most horrid condition 
in this resurrection process of Universalism. Their case 
certainly calls for the sympathy and prayers of all Chris- 
tendom. 

The most superficial reader of the Bible, it would 
seem, must see that this doctrine of no escape from de- 
served penalty completely sets aside the whole method 
of salvation by Jesus Christ, It is salvation by law 
through punishment and not by grace through faith as 
the Gospel teaches. It drives mercy, forgiveness, par- 
don, and " remission of sins that are past," entirely out 
of the divine administration, and reduces these terms to 
senseless jargon when used in the Bible. (Sec. CHI.) 
This doctrine of degrees and discipline in the spirit- 
world is a pet idea of Spiritualism, adopted by a portion 
of Universalis :s, as we conclude, to coucifate a clas^ 



Sec. 140.] Universalis^ xot of the Bible. 



441 



among them, numerous, who cherish this delusion, 
(CXLI,) and also to pare off in the public mind some 
of the glaring absurdity of the no future punishment 
scheme, heretofore and now taught by leading men in 
the order. Since they stand up behind the Bible to 
teach, and profess, in some sense, to believe in its divine 
inspiration, we have a right to demand of these men 
Scripture authority for saying that punishment and 
other means are employed in the resurrection state to 
discipline all men up to glory. Mr. Fletcher, in proof 
of progress in moral excellence, quotes the words. " First 
the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the 
ear," (Mark iv, 28 ;) and referring to Ezekiel xlvii, 3-5, 
says this vision " prefigured the growth and progress of 
the Gospel of Jesus." — P. 191. We admit that progress 
is here indicated, but progress where and by what 
means ? In the spirit- world by punishment ? These 
Scriptures no more refer to improvement in the resur- 
rection by discipline than they do to the battle of 
Waterloo. This doctrine is a mere human speculation 
unsupported by the word of God, and we might with 
equal propriety receive the wild notions of Swedenborg 
or those of any other crazy brain, concerning the future . 
world. Mr. F. has not produced a single text which 
teaches it, for the reason that he cannot. Both of the 
theories presented in this section are equally at war 
with the Bible. One assures all men equal glory and 
bliss after death. The other assures all men a remark- 
able favorable change, being freed from the evils of the 
flesh, and that a loving punishment may produce its 
" speedy and almost immediate results." Xot much to 
choose between them. They are both false, glaringly 
so. The Bible nowhere teaches that either the resur- 
rection or punishment saves from sin either in this 
world or the next. 

For a refutation of the doctrine that all men will be 



442 Uxiveksalism xot or the Ljble. [Part II, 



raised in glory, and that the resurrection takes place at 
death, see Section LXXXIX. 

For the assumption that all men will be as the angels 
of God in heaven, see Section XC. 

Paul presents two characters in the resurrection. See 
Section XI. 

The sins of this life all punished in this world. See a 
refutation of this in Section XL VI. 

Christ asserts that all that are in the grave shall come 
forth, and some to " the resurrection of damnation." See 
Section LXXX. 

All punishment is disciplinary. See Section CIII, 
where this is exploded. Punishment endless. See Sec- 
tion CXXXI. 

Forgiveness saves from no deserved punishment. See 
the falsity of this in Section LXX. 

On " some men's sins are open beforehand," or a ref- 
utation of the Universalist doctrine of prepunishment, 
see Section LX. 

As he reads this section the reader will please turn to 
the sections referred to, and we think he will find the 
whole ground of the new theory, as well as the old, 
* covered. 

CXLI. It is a remarkable fact that the so-called 
liberals of our time, while they cannot receive evangel- 
ical doctrines, deeming them unreasonable, are ready to 
embrace almost any absurdity that is presented in oppo- 
sition to them ; hence, infidels and semi-infidels have 
been the most ready dupes of that most blasphemous 
form of infidelity called Spiritualism. The advent of 
this delusion seems to have been hailed with delight 
by certain leaders in Universalism, and why should it 
not be ? Spiritualists are Universalists as defined by the 
latter. Mr. Whittemore said he used the term Univer- 
salist M to signify a person who believes in the eventual 



SeC. 141.] TJXIVEKSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 443 



holiness and happiness of all the human race, whatever 
maybe their opinion on minor topics." — Trumpet, March 
20, 1850. 

As grossly infidel as Spiritualism is, Universalist 
editors and ministers have had goodly words for it, 
cheering it on, and considering its infidel managers and 
deluded recipients as good Universalist brethren. Mr. 
"Whittemore says, " If Spiritualism be true, Universal- 
ism is certainly true. Spiritualism has no communion 
with Calvinism, or any other form of endless misery. In 
the eye of Spiritualism all is bright, all is tending up- 
ward and onward toward perfection. If Spiritualism, 
therefore, is true Universalism is true." — Trumpet, March 
27, 1858. 

Mr. Norwood, who was editor of the Connecticut de- 
partment of the same paper, gives the following state- 
ment. He called on a lady who was an orthodox Church- 
member, and an opposer of Universalism. He now 
i4 found her a Spiritualist, a talking and healing me- 
dium, and a strong believer in the salvation of the ' 
world. . . . True, she does not arrive at her conclusion in 
regard to Universalism in the precise way that do the ma- 
jority &f believers in that truth ; but, nevertheless, she 
is in the kingdom, and her process of arriving there is 
of secondary importance. Her influence will doubtless ' 
be instrumental of bringing others to an acknowledg- 
ment of the truth." 

Mr. X. furnishes another account of a woman who had 
been a Methodist. She witnessed some of the wonder- 
ful manifestations of Spiritualism, examined its claims, 
and "the result of this course was her thorough conver- 
sion to both Spiritualism and Universalism, and she now 
rejoices with joy unspeakable and full of glory. She 
looks back wdth wonder upon the cloud of darkness 
from which she has so suddenly emerged." — Trumpet, 
March 6, 1858. 



444 



Uniyersausm xot of the Bible. [Part II, 



These extracts need no comment, They show the 
affinity between Universalism and one of the worst and 
undisguised forms of the infidelity of the age. We 
might give much more of the same sort from other 
leading men in the order were it necessary. What shall 
we think of men calling themselves Christ's ministers who 
can not only look on without rebuke, but with evident 
satisfaction, and witness the operations of that which 
arrays itself against every vital point of the Christian 
religion, and which has carried grief and desolation into 
hundreds of once happy families? All acquainted with 
its history know that Spiritualism has done all this. Xo 
man with Christian feelings can for a moment approbate 
a system with such results. If we go to the Bible we 
shall find that none but wicked men, like Saul and 
Simon Magus, favored spirit-mongering in the days of 
the prophets and apostles. Shall we be charged with 
bigotry if we cannot take those who favor this work to 
our arms as the ministers of Jesns ? As well might one 
be called a bigot for not aiding the assassin in taking his 
own life. 

In keeping our eye on statistics, as furnished by them- 
selves in their Register for thirty years past, we see 
that there are large numbers who have been in the Uni- 
versalist ministry whose names do not now appear. If 
we go back to 1845, they report that year six hundred 
and sixty-five in the ministry. The present year (1872) 
they report six hundred and twenty-six, being thirty-nine 
less than they had seventeen years ago! Between these 
periods they have run up as high as seven hundred and 
forty-six, (1855,) and down as low as five hundred and 
forty-four, (1867.) Thus they have gone in and gone 
out. Now what has become of the men who have left? 
Some have died. The most of the rest have become 
sick of the work and its results. A few have been con- 
verted, and are now aiding in building up the faith they 



See. 141.] UxiVEESALJSM XO J OF THE BlBLE. 



445 



once sought to destroy. Others have become doctors, 
dentists, insurance agents, peddlers, politicians, mechan- 
ics, farmers, editors, and some traverse the country with 
mediums and thus propagate Universalism, finding it 
more convenient, as veil as lucrative, than the old- 
fashioned method of bending and twisting; the Bible to 
force the doctrine out of it. It must be much easier, as 
hell for none and heaven for all comes now directly 
from the spirits. This dropping out, for more honorable 
employment, has kept the number in the ministry re- 
duced. Mr. Drew, a Universalist editor, as far back as 
thirty years ago, complained of Universalist ministers 
for drifting about as mt-smerizers. (Spiritualists,) and in- 
quires, " Why is it — pray, why is it, that there is not a 
preacher of any other than the Universalist denomina- 
tion that goes out to lecture and gather up the nine- 
pences on the subject of animal magnetism? And why 
is it that so many of them are engaged in this business ? 
Cannot they find enough to do in the service of their 
Master by preaching the Gospel ? Is there any thing in 
this putting people to sleep and making them perform 
laughable tricks before folks, that has any science in it 
peculiarly related to the 'philosophy of Universalism?" 
— Banner, May 13, 1843. 

Could Mr. Drew have foreseen, at that early day, that 
mesmerism would be the Spiritualism of our day which 
is accomplishing such wonders in the enlargement of the 
borders of Universalism, he would, doubtless, instead of 
severely rebuking his brethren for participating in it, 
have cheered them on in the noble work. He would 
have discovered that it has " science in it peculiarly re- 
lated to the philosophy of Universalism." 

One thought more. Sine? Spiritualism is accepted, by 
leaders in the Universalist order, as one form of Univer- 
salism, it will now be admitted, we suppose, that Uni- 
versalism causes suicide, insanity, and the breaking up 



446 Universalism not 01 the Bible. [Part II. 



of families ; for all this has come of Spiritualism and 
much more. 

u Any thing to beat Grant," was the motto of a polit- 
ical party in the last Presidential election. So, by what 
is seen in this section and elsewhere in the book, the 
Universalist motto is evidently this, " Any thing to beat 
JPartialism" That "the end sanctifies the means" is 
not a new rule of action. Romanists and Infidels adopted 
it long time ago. 



GENERAL INDEX. 



Page 

Anger of God, proved endless by U. arguments 52, 279 

not a passion, as in men 362 

not retained forever 217 

All nations, sense of 13 

gathered at Jerusalem 105 

All shall know the Lord, perversion 23 

All one in Christ, perversion 24 

Angels, holy, are polluted heathen 67, 105 

all men to be equal to them 77 

fallen, reserved in chains 130 

All Israel shall be saved, perversion 29 

All men saved years ago 44 

drawn to Christ Ill 

Atonement, vicarious, denied 312 

Apostles persecuted for preaching U. refuted 276 

All, not always a universal whole 83 

Aion, considered 323 

Age-lasting 328 

All flesh not expressive of the whole race 97 

Apocalypse, when written. . . 338 

does not refer to the future state 63 

All saved without future suffering 348 

the idea first advocated by a man calling himself a min- 
ister 401 

After death the judgment (Heb. ix, 27, 28) 54 

All things, restitution of 81, 189 

All kindreds, sense of 14 

As in Adam all die 226-230 

Athenagoras, his sentiments 398 

Attributes of God, argument from 95, 96, 308, 309, 345-348 

Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost 24, 326 

Ballou, 2d, LL, rebukes the perversion of Rev. v, 13 63 

says of the Fathers, for more than a hundred years after 
St. John, "that there was a future state of suffering, 

they all agreed" 399 

Barnabas, his views ...» 397 

Ballou, 1st., LL, a preacher twenty-seven years before he learned 

that there is no future judgment 401 

his reply concerning the devils in the swine 287, 288 

his disbelief of miracles 358 



448 



Ukiversaiism not of the Bible. 



Page 

Balfour, W., denies the immortality of the soul 230 

Bigotry, charged with, for disfellowship of U 405-411 

Conditions implied when not expressed 18, 180 

Christ, revealed from heaven when Jerusalem was destroyed . ... 67 

never died as Priest 56 

came not ro save men in the future world : quotations from 

Ballon. Whittemore, "Williamson, and Skinner. ...312. 313 

saves none from all sin in either world 314. S15 

deficient as a readier of U 394 

came not to destroy sin and reform the sinner 137 

came not to judge the world 134 

his temptation .284-295 

careful to correct the errors of the age. Mr. Whittetnore's 

testimony. 385, 386 

made a sinner by U 227, 286 

Christians, not gathered when Jerusalem was destroyed 70 

fled from the scene 75, 106 

their duty in respect to U 411 

appeals to their fears 168, 169 

Crown at the end against U 116 

Controversy, caution to be used 372 

Coming of Christ, the same in 1 Thess. iv. 15-18 and 2 Thess. i, 

7-10. 72 

also Matt, xxv, 31-36. and 1 Cor. xv. 23. . . .109, 110. 244, 245 
predicted Matt. xvi. 27. 28. and fulfilled Matt, xvii, 1-5. . . 113 

rive different comings 113 

Jerusalem's destruction never so called 113 

Cain not threatened with endless punishment 91. 92 

Confess, every tongue shall 152 

Changed in the twinkling of an eye 245 

Church of Christ, a vile body 322 

all belong to it 322 

Church forming not successful ; why? 405 

Creature subject to vanin (Rom. viii, 20) , . . . 330 

Chauncey. Dr., his opinion of Rev. xx, 12-15 338 

Clemens Romanus, his views 397 

Clerneus Alexandrinus, his views 398 

Coppin, Richard, account of 401 

Christian, his views of the Gospel 187, 188 

Conscience, Hell of 123. 126 

Cloak at Troas, Williamsons illustrations 278. 279 

( reed, obliged to make one 356 

Crawford, the suicide , . . 420 

[Doctrine of IT., arguments to prove often repeated, and why. .426-428 
Damnation, opposed to salvation 303 

one of the precious promises 303 

Dead, sense of. (Rom. vi, 7) 32 

Devil, children of 49 

Elymas, child of 49 



General Ixdes. 



449 



Page 

Devil, Judas so called. 290 

destruction of 194: 

personality of. 284-295 

why suffered to do so much mischief 292, 293 

piety connected with a belief of 293 

Devil and his angels, different interpretations by Wbittemore and 

Page.... 10T 

Devils enter the swine 287 

personality of, a Jewish belief , . 289 

quotation from Dr. Clarke . 287 

Destruction of Jerusalem, not the judgment so often named. . . .73-75 

Jews and Christians not separated then 105, 106 

the expression not used by the apostles 351, 252 

all the Jews fully punished before that time 305 

Christians noi gathered then 70, 106 

Christian dispensation did not commence then 102, 103 

Desire of the righteous, used in proof of U 209, 210 

Death, no more, perversion 218, 219 

destruction of, not salvation 236, 237 

moral, absurdity of interpreting John v, 28, 29 202 

of Christ, deceptive use of the passages which teach it. . . 311 
Deceptive means, numbers in U. ministry from other orders, com- 
parative view 380, 381 

Difference between U. and Evangelical Christians, testimony of 

leading men 405-407 

Divine favor neither gained nor lost 317 

Die in your sins 137 

Dods. J. B.. a quotation from him on the resurrection 232 

Discussions, who should engage in them 372, 373 

Disciplinary punishment ineffectual 307, 308 



Every creature, this expression considered 62 

Everlasting punishment, rebuke of Dr. Huntington 100 

Dr. A. Clarke 108 

not inflicted at Jerusalem 68 

cannot be inflicted in this world 329 

Jews and G-entiles believed it 384 

Christ and his apostles never contradicted it 387 

not glad tidings 186 

a belief in it constitutes a Christian, charge refuted 371 

productive of cruelty among men 428, 430 

Everlasting, eternal, forever, meaning of 324 

Endless, a favorite word with U 326 

Eternal life, its future state, reference denied 78, 162-166 

VThittemore versus Whittemore upon this expression.80. 165. 166 

a gift 295 

Exposure of U. beneficial to truth 365 

Elect, Paul's anxiety for them. . ..50, 51, 81, 90 

Enemies of Christ under his feet not salvation 236 

Eternal death, expression not in the Bible 349 

29 



450 



UiNTYEKSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



Page 

Evangelical sentiments demoralizing 117 

Emerson, the suicide 422 

Faith the substance of things hoped for, sophistry 52 

Future punishment, doctrine of, a result of U. interpretations 

31, 32, 75, 76, 183-185 

Future suffering denied 77 

Future existence not affected by our conduct here, Williamson. 2 7 6, 277 

Whittemore 40, 162 

idea refuted 116-127, 246 

Father, God a, U. views refuted 44-50 

Mr. French out upon his brethren for their perversions of Gen. 

xxii, 18 20 

Eom. xi, 26 31, 32 

John iii, 35 87 

John xii, 31 134 

Lam. iii, 31. , 144 

1 Tim. ii, 4 145 

Fear appealed to 159 

jailer 202 

subject discussed 166-170 

fear of God, Whittemore versus Balfour 255 

U. have their fears 424 

every penalty an appeal to fear 163 

Flaming fire, (2 Thess. i, 8,) a specimen from Ballou 65, 66 

Fathers, Christian, their views concerning a future state 394-399 

Felix, why he trembled 148 

Fatalism of U 214-217, 309 

Forbearance of God, U. robs him of it 181 

Free-will a chimera 214 

Forgiveness, U. views refuted 172, 433 

Flesh, all sins pertains to it, a common belief among U 432 

Future state, all immortal and as the angels but not equal 433 

Good, overcome evil with 430 

Grace abounding more than sin 79, 80 

no grace in U 300 

Generation, its meaning 104 

Gospel, affects not our future condition 161 

preached in the future state, a result of U. views 184, 185 

commission contains no U 185 

good tidings of great joy .183-188 

God, all and in all, not salvation 236 

not imitated by man 428 

Gehenna, whole subject considered * 254-268 

German Universalism 355 

Grain sown in one state and reaped in another 161 

George, W. C, a disrelish in the order to practical preaching. 41 2, 413 
George, J., his statement of the deplorable condition of the order. 413 

God worse than man, result of U. reasonings 46, 47 

Gomorrah not threatened with endless punishment 92 



General Index. 451 

Page 

Graves, Jews and Christians raised from, when Jerusalem was 

destroyed 199 

"come up out of your graves," Ezek. xxxvii, 12, sophistry 

exposed ; 199 

and resurrection connected in but one place in the Bible, 

reply to.., 203 

Gift, salvation a 295, 296 

Gracious words, silly argument 93 

Good tidings of great joy 183 

Hermas, his view 398 

Hypocrites, or U. professing other views 373 

Huntington, Dr., influence of U. upon him 374 

High Priests, never died figuratively 56 

Hope, wicked may hope for more than the good 65 

Paul's hope, (Acts xxiv, 15.) examined 38, 39 

can you hope for endless misery? answer to 52 

Heathen given to Christ, argument refuted : . . .86-90 

Hell, no account of its creation 96, 97 

Paul never used the word 350-352 

Heaven not a state or place of happiness after death 139-142 

all men came down from heaven 195 

Hades, opinion of the Jews 101 

Christ spoke in accordance with this opinion 273-389 

Historical falsehood concerning endless punishment refuted 394 

History, ancient, of IT., tacts stated 395 

modern, facts stated 400-402 

Heirs of promise 18 

Issues, false, on God the Saviour of all men 279 

meriting heaven , 296 

shuffling from doctrines to denominations 354, 355 

Insanity caused by endless punishment 318-324 

Infidelity of U 409, 410 

Immutability of God, false reasoning from 52, 279 

Judgment, day of, means Gospel day, refuted 36, 37 

divers opinions of Heb. ix, 27, 28 54, 55 

current views refuted 55-60 

reserved unto 130, 131 

Judgment, future, how treated 131, 132 

resurrection and judgment at the end of time 136-147 

judgment, Rom. xiv, 10, 11; parallel with Phil, ii, 9-11; 

concealed by U., and why 153 

opinion of the Jews 101 

why called to judgment if souls enter bliss or misery at 

death? 353, 354 

not said to be in eternity , 353 

sins open beforehand to, 1 Tim t v, 24. 150 

general in the earth when Jerusalem was destroyed 75 



452 U^IYERSALISM NOT OF THE BlBLE. 

Page 

Judgment, " Now is the judgment of this world," John xii, 31 ; 

its perversion rebuked by Mr. French 135 

Judge and judgment used in different senses 131, 132 

Judgeth in the earth, sophistry exposed 132 

Justin Martyr gives the belief of the Church respecting future 

punishment 395-397 

Jailer, case of 221-223 

Justice and mercy not the same 381 

Kingdom of heaven, its future-state reference denied 22 

Kingdom of God, its application confined to this world 248 

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in it at Jerusalem's destruc- 
tion 341, 342 

Lordship of Christ not salvation 33 

Love of God, U. argument refuted 94 

unchangeable 95 

not a passion, as in man 362 

preaching it in the abstract begets irreligion 417 

harmonizes with endless punishment 425, 426 

Love to God, how it obtains in the heart 425, 426 

Law, its penalty an appeal to fear 168, 169 

Liberality, U. willing to hear both sides 363 

Long-suffering, U. drives it from the Divine government 181 

Last day, deceptive course exposed 136, 137 

Living God, sense of 275, 276 

Mercy, none in U 510 

and justice not the same 381 

Murder proved innocent by U. license 61 

Mountain on which Christ was tempted was human pride. ...285, 286 

Moral preaching not relished 412 

Ministers of Christ, their duty in reference to U 366 

Ministry, comparative view not presented 380 

Materialism not extensively believed ; why? 230 

its influence in France 423, 424 

Moral agency denied 214 

Murray, his views unlike modern U 434, 435 

Opposition helps U 365 

A. C. Thomas' view of it 365, 366 

the kind of opposition U. are fond of 365 

Oath of God 21 

Promise, Abrahamic, not fulfilled by the resurrection 11 

whole subject considered 9-22 

Punishment, future, demoralizing, quotation from Skinner 117 

Punishment, not after death, in what it consists 120 

social, physical, and mental sufferings considered 120-126 

all punishments a blessing 107-120 

refuted 301-311 



General Index. 453 

Punishment, not inflicted before the sin 150 

inflicted immediately, Whi&emore 120 

Witherell 131 

opposed to the idea that men are reserved, 2 Pet. ii, 9 130 

none saved from 171, 172, 299, 300 

remission of, a curse 91 

endless, a conclusion from U. views of 1 Cor. xv, 22 229 

greater error than all others put together. 386, 387 

first openly asserted by Tertullian, refuted 394-396 

Christian Fathers believed it 394, 396 

Christ and his apostles never condemned it 393 

threatened in the Bible, admitted by Dr. Huntington 100 

Persecution, U., the sect every- where spoken against 157, 158 

they have never persecuted , 360, 361 

never had the rod of civil power 361 

Peter's vision, perversion 195 

Prayer, all pray that U. may be true 206, 207 

can you pray that one soul may be damned? 208 

infidel sentiments concerning prayer 316-319 

Mr. Ballou's illustration, a boy teasing his father 320 

not answered, refuted 317 

Cobb and Drew, their family devotions, Phariseeism. . .320, 321 

U. prayer -meetings farcical 318 

Pentecost, day of, (Matt, xxv, 31-46,) had its fulfillment then . . . 99 

Perfections of G-od, argument considered 345 

Paul, St., aspires to a spiritual resurrection in this life 315 

reproached for his U., refuted 276 

aspires to posthumous honors 148 

against U., 1 Cor. xv 247, 248 

never used the word hell 350 

his hope concerning the resurrection (Acts xxiv, 15). ...38, 39 

Polycarp, his belief in future punishment 397 

Pharisees, their hatred to Christ, evidence of his U 392 

Predestination taught 214, 215, 308. 309 

Parables founded upon facts and not fiction 273 

44 Presence of the Lord," meaning of 68 

Probation may close before death 118 

Penalty of the law, U. views 120 

an appeal to fear 168, 169 

Pardon, U. views refuted 171-177, 299, 300 

Positive punishment for sin inflicted in this life, U. generally agree 

in this . 432 

Progressionists, their distinguishing doctrine.. . 436 

Resurrection, all men saved by it 9-11 

Paul believed with the Jews concerning it 38, 39 

Balfour's views 230 

current views of the order, quotation from Dods 232 

Bush refuted 238-242 

all raised in glory, the idea exploded 242-244 

Paul labored to attain 247 



454 



UNIVERSALIS^ NOT OF THE BlBLE. 



Page 

Resurrection, Jews and Christians raised at Jerusalem's destruc- 
tion ! 199 

all shall be equal 248 

of the just. (Luke xiv, 14,) when it took place .142, 143 

Christ's conversation with the Sadducees against U. ..249, 250 

Restitution of all things not the salvation of all 82, 190 

Rule of interpretation, Whitt em ore's, destructive to U. expositions. 

133, 249^348 

future reference of Luke xx, 34-36, disproved by U. defi- 
nitions 3 6 8-3 U 

Rationalism, resolution of the Boston Association 356 

design of the resolution 357 

men declared to be not Christian ministers, yet continue to 

preach U 357, 358 

Ballou a Rationalist 358, 359 

the principles general in the order 288 

hypocrisy 360 

Resolution prohibiting drunkards, gamblers, etc., from becoming 

officers in U. societies 412 

Reason, sinners not governed by it 110 

man responsible when it is dethroned 221 

its office in religion 425, 426 

Rich man and Lazarus, absurdity of the U. interpretation. . . .269-275 

Rewarded according to works at Jerusalem's destruction 112 

Run so as to obtain, against U 116 

Repentance, impossible to renew again to 219 

Rebellion in heaven, the possibility that it may be endless 420 

Statistics, U. Church membership given. 402 

numbers when compared with the different Evangelical 

orders in United States 402-405 

Seed of Abraham, who are they? 12, 13 

Soul, its loss, natural life 40-43 

its immortality denied by Balfour 230 

part of God, refuted. 210-213 

Sympathy not the rule of doctrine 45 

arguments from, dishonorable to God 46 

opposed to both justice and mercy, illustration 47, 48 

appeals to, deceptive and fallacious 346, 347 

M Saviour of the world," this no proof of U 63, 64 

Salvation, none in the future state, a result of "C. reasoning. ..133, 182 

none anywhere 314 

a gift 296 

made sure when G-od created man 312, 313 

a Christless thing 313 

all saved three thousand years ago.. . 44 

of grace 300 

Sin, pleasures of 118-157 

none saved from it in this world. 314 

its own punishment 12S-130 

God its author .. 214, 215, 308 



General Index. 455 

Page 

Sin, evangelical views of, misrepresented 117 

gospel grace saves from punishment for 173-176 

death frees from it, perversion of Rom. vi, 7 32 

Sting of death 245 

Supplied words (2 Cor. v, 10, 11) 73, 74 

Saints and sinners on a level as to the future 246 

Sheep and goats, shall separate them, Page versus Rogers 107 

Saviour, G-od the special 275, 276 

Satan, Peter so called , . . . 290 

State Prisons visited to sustain IT 377 

Atheism sustained in the same way 377 

J. B. Finley on the agency of U. in filling the Ohio Prison. 379 

crimes not chargeable to Evangelical sentiments 378, 379 

Suffering with Christ connected with future glory 297 

Strait gate 339-342 

Suicide, no sin 343 

prepunished 342 

U. commit it .420-422 

rational if U. is true . 42 1 

Christians will not commit it 424 

Spiritualism, a form of U., accepted as such and cheered on by XL 

editors 442 

Twistical, history of the word 376, 377 

Tears shall be all wiped 218 

"The dead," import of the expression 242 

Thomas, A. C, specimens of his sophistry 52, 53 

TertuUian 398 

the first who taught endless punishment in the Church, re- 
futed 394 

Titus, Bishop of Bostra 399 

Terrors of the Lord must be preached 170, 171 

Temptation, the devil not the only source 290 

of Christ 284 

Ballou's gross perversion. . . , 284-286 

Truth, Christ came not to make it 312 

Tatian, his doctrine 398 

Theophilus 398 

Universalism not a new doctrine. . . , 354 

extensively believed in other sects 373-376 

extensively believed in Germany 355 

its decline in Maine 367 

"will do to live by," false 383 

never reforms 411-418 

object of its ministry different from that of the Evangelical 

ministry 372 

not indebted to Christ for it, but the resurrection. . .9, 11, 276 
destroyed by its own arguments, 52, 53, 133, 148, 182. 229, 

348-353, 368-371 

comparative view of its ministry in point of numbers. .403, 404 



456 Universalism not of the Bible. 

Pag* 

Universalism, duty of Christians respecting it 411 

ministers should expose it 366 

wisdom and information necessary 366 

some good ministers do not understand it ; such should be 

cautious 3*72 

some respectable men embrace it, and why? 41*7, 418 

not reformatory? why 416 

its modern heaven. . . . 437 

opposed in every point to Evangelical Christianity. . . .405-408 

system of infidelity 410, 411 

testimony of leading men in the order 408 

number of preachers in U. States 402-405 

its opinions grow most naturally out of the Bible 402 

many of its ministry once partialists 380, 381 

its want of vitality accounted for 187 

its ministry should not be listened to; why? 363, 364 

condemned out of its own mouth 375 

leads to suicide 420-422 

its modern views of the future state given by Fletcher 432 

Universalists, disfellowship of, not bigotry 409 

treatment Christians should given them 411 

Unpardonable sin, fifty dollars offered for the expression 349 

Yengeance of God, Paul preached it 159 

purifies the sinner 66 

endless, so proved by U. logic 279, 280 

means disciplinary punisliment refuted 430 

Whittemore, T., testifies to the difference between his and other 

sects 407 

a twistical writer 376, 377 

Witherell, J. F., his pamphlet, its general commendation 28 

Wesley, John, made a U., hypocrite, and liar 373-376 

"Will, human, its freedom denied 214 

God's will always done, refuted 216, 217 

absolute 309 



SCRIPTURE INDEX. 





Genesis. 






Isaiah. 




Ch. 


Yer. 


Page 


Ch. 


Ver. 


Page 


Ch. 


Yer. 


Page 


16. 


25 


40 


\ m 


1 


96 


2 > 


2 


43 


16. 


26 


41 


1. 


t 




Id. 


D— 1 U 


O 3 
OO 


16. 


27, 28 


111 


3. 


1 o 








Q7 

V ( 


22. 


30' 


249 


4. 


9-15 


91 


45. 


23-25 


152 


23. 


13 


22 


7. 


23 


91 


46. 


10 11 


213 


24. 


9 


201 


12. 


2 3 


9 


49. 


6' 


43 


25. 


31-46 


99 


is! 


1 1, LO 


n 

y 


55. 


1U, 11 


lbl) 


26. 


24 


297 


1 Q 

XV. 




yi 


57. 


ID 


51 




Mark 




21. 


33 


323 


59. 


20 


31 


1. 


12, 13 


284 


34, 


Exodus. 
6, 7 


180 


31. 


Jeremiah. 

33, 34 


155 


3. 
12. 


29 
25 


24 
249 








Lojmentaiions. 






Luke. 




q 
v. 


1 Kings. 


lOO 


3. 
3. 


31 

32, 33 


143 
301 


1. 
2. 


68-75 
10 


19 
183 


18. 


36, 37 


OJL 1 


4. 


1-13 


284 








Ezekiel. 




4. 


22 


93 




TT.yrn 

MJ/d/U/. 




18. 


4 


299 


6. 


22, 23 


139 


y. 


13 


] 78 


37. 


11, 14 


199 


12. 


32 


166 




Hosea. 




12. 


4, 5 


254 




Psalms. 




9. 


15 


yo 


13. 


23-30 


339 


o 
~ . 

i * 


o 


QC 


14. 


14 


142 


o 

ii 


00 

ooZ 


2. 


Joel. 


97 


16. 


19-31 


269 


1 1 
li . 




9 C O 


28 


18. 


18 


162 


22. 


27 


75 




Micah. 




20. 


35, 36 


249 


58. 


11 


131 


7. 


18 


217 




John. 




62. 


12 


171 




Malachi. 




3. 


35 


86 












47 


4. 
5. 


42 


63 




Proverbs. 






6 


28, 29 


197 


10. 


24 


209 




Matthew. 




6. 


27 


128 


11. 


7 


64 


4. 


1-11 


284 


6. 


37 


86 


11. 


31 


192 


5. 


11, 12 


139 


6. 


40 


131 


13. 


15 


156 


6. 


9 


44 


8. 


21-24 


137 


14. 


32 


64 


6. 


10 


206 


8. 


41, 42 


48 








7. 


11 


316 


9. 


39 


131 




Ecclesiastes. 




8. 


28-34 


287 


12. 


31 


131 


8. 


11 


116 


10. 


23 


115 


12. 


32 


110 


9. 


2 


192 


10. 


28 


254 


12. 


47 


131 


12. 


7 


210 


12. 


32 


24 


13. 


33 


138 


12. 


14 


182 


16. 


6 


280 


17. 


2 


86 



458 Universalism not of the 



Bible. 



Acts. 



Ch. 


Yer. 




Page 


3. 


25 




9 


3. 


20, 21 




81 


10. 


10-16 




195 


13. 


32, 33 




19 


16. 


30 




221 


17. 


30, 31 




36 


23. 


6-9 




39 


24. 


15 




38 


24. 


25 




148 


28. 


22 




157 




Romans. 




2. 


4-16 




149 


4. 


11, 22- 


-24 


18 


5. 


12, 17- 


-21 


76 


6. 


23 




295 


6. 


7 




32 


8. 


17, 18 




298 


8. 


19-23 




330 


11_ 


26 




29 


12. 


19-21 


362, 


430 


14. 


10-12 




152 


14. 


7, 8 




33 


14. 


23 




206 


15. 


8-10 




19 




1 Corinthians. 




9. 


27 




116 


15. 


21-23 


223- 


-226 


15. 


24-26 




236 


15. 


27, 28 




237 


15. 


35 




238 


15. 


39-49 




240 


15. 


50-52 




244 


15. 


53, 57 




245 


15. 


58 




246 




2 Corinthians. 




4. 


17, 18 




296 


5. 


10, 11 




73 



[. Yer. Page 

5. 15 311 

5. 17 60 

Galatians. 

3. 16 12 

3. 17-21 282 

3. 26-29 18 

3. 28 24 

3. 17-21 283 

Ephesians. • 

1. 10 189 

2. 6 141 
2. 9, 10 268 

4. 32 172 

PMlippians. 

2. 9-11 152 

3. 11 315 
3. 20, 21 322 

Colossians. 

1. 20 190 

3. 13 172 

1 Thessalonians. 

4. 15-17 65 

2 Thessalonians. 

1. 7-10 65. 109 

2. 10-12 303 

1 Timothy. 

2. 4 143 

2. 6 311 

4. 2 125 

4. 10 275 

5. 24 150 

2 Timothy. 

2. 10 50 

4. 6-8 147 



Hebrews. 



Ch. 


Ver. 


Page 


2. 


9 


311 


2. 


14, 15 


193 


4. 


3 


90 


5. 


9 


158 


6. 


1, 2 


146 


6. 


4-6 


219 


6. 


17-20 


21 


9. 


27, 28 


54 


10. 


26-31 


158 


11. 


1 


52 


12. 


11 


85 




James. 




1. 


14 


290 


1. 


17 


52 




l Jrezei . 




1. 


16-18 


116 


o 
L. 


Q 

y 


1 2ft 

loU 


3. 


7 


34 




1 John. 




L 


7 


98 


3. 


8 


188 


3. 


15 


342 


4. 


14 


63 


4 # 


16 


Q4. 




2 John. 






10, 11 


409 




duae. 






a 
o 


19ft 
1ZO 




14, 15 






Revelation. 




2. 


10 


127 


5. 


13 


61 


7. 


9, 10 


60 


14. 


13 


53 


20. 


12-15 


337 


21. 


4, 7, 8 


218 



aoltss fss\ 



PUBLISHED BY NELSON & PHILLIPS, 
805 Broadway, New York. 



BIOGRAPHY. 

Abbott, Rev. Benjamin, 

Life of. By Eev. J. Felrtk. 18mo $0 55 

Anecdotes of the We s leys. 

By Eev. J. B. Wakbley. Large 16ino 1 25 

Asbury and his Coadjutors. • 

By Wii. C. Larrabee. 2 volumes * 2 25 

Asbury, Francis, Life and Times ofj 

or, The Pioneer Bishop. By "W. P. Strickland, D.D. 12mo. 175 

Bangs, Rev. Dr. Nathan, 

Life and Times of. By Eev. Abel Stevens, LL.D 175 

Half morocco 2 25 

Biographical Sketches of Methodist Minister s y 

By J. M'Clintock, D.D. 8vo. Imitation morocco 5 00 

Boehvis Reminiscences, 

Historical and Biographical. 12mo 1 75 

Bramwell, Life of William, 

18mo o GO 

Car tw right, Peter, Autobiography of, 

Edited by W. P. Strickland, D.D. 12mo 1 75 

Carvosso, Life of, 

18mo e 0 75 

Celebrated Women, Biographies of, 

With twenty-eight splendid Engravings on steel, executed 
by the best American artists. Imperial 8vo. Printed on 
beautifully tinted paper. Turkey morocco, gilt edge and bev- 
eled boards , 20 00 



Chalmers, Thomas, 

A Biographical Study, By James Dodds. Large IGrao 1 50 



BOOKS FOR THE FAMILY— BIOGRAPHY. 



Rogers, Hester Ann, 

Life of. 18mo $0 65 

Smith, Rev. John, 

Memoirs of. By Eev. R. Teeefey. I81110 0 75 

Successful Mercha?it, the. 

By Rev. William Aethtte, A.M. 16mo. I 00 

Village Blacksmith, the. 

18mo 0 75 

Wall 's End Miner, the, 

Or, A Brief Memoir of the Life of "William Crister. By- 
Rev. J. Eveeett. 1 81210 0 50 

Walker, Rev. G. W., ♦ 

Recollections of. By M. P. Gaddis. l2mo 1 75 

Watson, Rev. Richard, 

Life of. By Rev. T. Jackson. With Portrait. 8vo 2 75 

Wesley and his Coadjutors. 

By Rev. Wm. C. Laeeabee. Two volumes. 16mo 2 25 

Wesley Family* 

Memoirs of the. By Rev. A. Clarke, LL.D. 12mo 1 75 

Wesley, Rev. Charles ^ 

Life of. By Rev. T. Jackson. With Portrait. 8vo 2 70 

Wesley, Rev. John, 

Life of. By Rev. Richaed Watson. 12mo 1 25 



DOCTRINAL. 

Admonitory Counsels to a Methodist. 

Illustrating the Peculiar Doctrines and Economy of Meth- 
odism. By Rev. John Bake well. l8mo. 0 g$ 

Analysis of Watson 's Institutes, 

By Rev. John M'Clintock, D.D. ISmo 0 56 



Angels, 

Nature and Ministry of. By Rev. J. Rawson. 18mo 



0 85 



BOOKS FOR THE FAMILY— DOCTRINAL. 



Composition of a Sermon, 

Essay on. By Rev. John Claude. 18mo ,$0 55 

Colenso Reviewed, 

Fallacies of. By Rev. Charles H. Fowler. 16mo 0 75 

Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, 

By Rev. W. Denton, M. A. Large 16mo . ........ . 1 (K> 

Defense of Jesus, 

From the French of Menard St. Martin. By Paul Cobden. 
l6mo 0 75 

Defense of our Fathers, 

By Bishop Emory. 8vo 1 00 

Discipline of the M. E. Church, 

Changes in, made by the General Conference of 1868. 
Pamphlet. 12mo 0 20 



Discipline of the M. E. Church, 

Guide in the Administration of the. By Bishop Baker. 
New Edition. Edited by Rev. "William L. Harris. l6mo.. 125 

Discipline of the M. E. Church, 

History of the. By Rev. Robert Emory. Revised and 



brought down to 1864. 12mo . 1 50 

Doctrines and Discipline of the M. E. Church, 

New edition. 1872. 24mo 0 50 

Morocco, tuck, gilt edges 1 00 

12mo. Roan flexible. Red edge 1 25 

Morocco flexible. Gilt edge 1 75 

Emory, Bishop, 

Life and Works of. 8vo 8 00 

Episcopal Controversy and. Defense, 

By Bishop Emory. In 1 vol. 8vo 1 20 

Episcopal Controversy Reviewed, 

By Bishop Emory. In one volume. 8vo 0 90 

Evidences of Religion ; 

The Scientific. By William C. Larrabee. 12mo 1 25 

Evangelist, the True, 

By J. Porter, D.jD. 16mo 0 60 



BOOKS FOR THE FAMILY— DOCTRINAL. 

Fair bairn on Prophecy. 

Prophecy in respect to its Nature, Function, and Interpreta- 
tion. 8vo $3 00 

Fletcher, Rev. J., Works of, 

Four volumes, 8vo 12 00 

Plain calf. 14 00 

Half calf. 14 00 

Fletcher's Checks to Antinomianism^ 

Two volumes. 8vo 6 00 

Hamline's Works, Bishop, 

Vol. 1. Sermons 2 00 

Vol. 2. Miscellaneous 2 00 

Harmony and Exposition of the Gospels, 

By James Strong, S.T.D. Beautifully Illustrated by Maps 

and Engravings. Svo 5 00 

Half caff or half morocco 6 00 

Harmony of the Divine Dispensations, 

By G-. Smith, F.S.A. Svo 2 00 

Half calf or half morocco 4 0O 

Heaven, Scripture Views of, 

By Rev. J. Edmoxdson, A.M. 18mo 0 55 

Hibbard on the Psalms. 

The Psalms Chronologically Arranged, with Historical Intro- 
ductions, and a General Introduction to the whole Book. By 

Rev. F. G. Hibbakd. Svo 3 50 

Half morocco 4 50 

Historical Confirmation of Scripture, 

By ¥m. Blatch. 18mo 0 35 

History of the M. E. Church. 

Revised Edition. By Nathan Bangs, D.D. 4 vols., 12mo. . 6 00 

Homiletics, a Treatise on, 

By Daniel P. Kidder, D.D. 12mo \ H 

Homilist, the, 

Sermons for Preachers and Lavmen. By Rev. Erwtn House. 
12mo 1 7fl 

Home's Introduction to the Bible. 

Abridged edition. 12mo ,♦ 160 



BOOKS FOR THE FAMILY— DOCTRINAL. 



Apology for the Bible. 

A Powerful Antidote to Infidelity. By Bishop "Watson. 
ISmo > $0 50 

Apostolical Succession, 

An Ensay on. By Thoiias Powell. l2mo. ........ 1 10 

Appeal to Matter of Fact and Common Sense. 

By Rev. John Fletcher. l8mo..*. C 55 

Baptism, 

Its Subjects, Mode, Obligation, Import, and Relative Order. 

By Rev. F. G. Hibbard. 12mo 1 T5 

Baptism, 

Obligation, Subjects, and Mode. An Appeal to the Candid 
of all Denominations, in which the Obligations, Subjects, 
and Mode of Baptism are Discussed. By Rev. Henry Slices. 
18mo 0 55 

Baptism, 

Obligation, Subjects, and Mode. In two Parts. Part I. 
Infant Baptism ; Part II. The Mode. By H, M. Shaeeer. 
18mo 0 55 

Beatitudes, 

Lectures on the. By C. C. Cru^t. 12mo 100 

Benson's Commentary. 

Five volumes., sheep. Imperial 8vo 25 00 

Half calf 28 00 

Plain calf 28 00 

Bible Hand-Book, 

Theologically Arranged. By F. C. Holllday, D.D. l2mo. 1 50 

Bible. Index and Dictionary of, 

A Complete Index and Concise Dictionary of the Holy Bible. 

By Rev. John Barr. 12mo 100 

Butler s Analogy of Religion, 

Natural and Revealed. 12mo . ~ . * 1 CO 

Calvinism as It Is. 

By Randolph S. Foster, D.D. 12mo ^_ 1 S5 

Calvinistic Controversy. 

Embracing a Sermon on Predestination and Election. By 
WiLBCR Fise, D.D. 12mo 100 



BOOKS FOR THE FAMILY— DOCTRINAL. 



Campbellism Exposed, 

By Wm. Phillips. 18mo $0 70 

Christ and Christianity . 

A Vindication of the Divine Authority of the Christian Re- 
ligion, Grounded on the Historical Yerity of the Life of Christ, 
By Wi. L. Alexander, D.D. 12mo \ JO 

Christ Crucified. 

(Divinity of Christ.) By George W. Clarke. 18mo 0 GO 

Christ of the Gospels, the, 

By Tulloch. 16mo 1 25 

Christian Pastorate, 

Its Character, Responsibilities, and Duties. By Rev. Dan- 
iel P. Kidder. 12mo 1 75 

Christian Perfection, 

By Rev. J. Fletcher. 24mo 0 40 

Christian Perfection, 

An Account of. By Rev. J. Wesley. 24mo 0 45 

Christian Perfection, 

Scripture Doctrine of. By Geo. Peck, D.D. 12mo 1 75 

Abridged. 18mo 0 40 

Christian Purity j 

Or, The Heritage of Faith. Revised. By Randolph S. Fos- 
ter, D.D., LL.D. 12mo 1 75 

Christians Manual, 

A Treatise on Christian Perfection. By Rev. Timothy Meb- 
ritt. 24mo - * 0 40 

Christian Theology, 

By A. Clarke, LL.D. 12mo _'. ... 125 

Church Polity, 

By Bishop Morris. 18mo 0 40 

Church Polity, 

Essay on. By Rev. Abel Stevens, LL.D. 12mo. . , ( . 1 00 

Clarke's Commentary, 

Six vols., sheep. Imp. 8vo 80 00 

Half calf S4 00 

Plain calf 84 00 

Turkey morocco, full gilt 46 00 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



